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

Mrmoe

Terry wrote: »

Being homeless isn't really healthy or safe.

A mentioned previously, they could have looked for a back payment after the fire.
This isn't like not paying your phone bill. This is about a man's home. It's about the difference between having a roof over your head and being homeless.
The fire chief is a selfish bastard.

This is necessary for the safety of the wider community. As other people have said a precedent would be set which would lead to the demise of services of the whole community. There has to be consequences to our actions. It would be same way with medical treatment. Would you prioritise a smoker to get a new pair of lungs or another person who never smoked? People need to take more responsibility for their own lives. The home owner took a course of action armed with the knowledge that if his house caught fire that the fire brigade would have no obligation to help him.

I do not think it is the best system to have but once it is in place they have to live by it.

BluePlanet

Mrmoe wrote: »

This is necessary for the safety of the wider community. As other people have said a precedent would be set which would lead to the demise of services of the whole community.

Yeah because there is no other way to receive payment like um, a court of law?
To extend that logic, if somone hadn't purchased Health Insurance, then they should bleed to death at the doorsteps of the hospital.

---

Back to the original story, apparently 3 dogs and 1 cat burned to death in the blaze.
Still proud of those brave firefighters?

Amhran Nua

Precedent my bum. Hit him with a $750 uninsured call out charge after you save his house and let word of that spread around. This is like something out of a third world country, like the Philippines, where people are locked into the hospitals after treatment until their families can afford to pay for it. And they get charged for the time they are locked in, too.

Mrmoe

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yeah because there is no other way to receive payment like um, a court of law?
To extend that logic, if somone hadn't purchased Health Insurance, then they should bleed to death at the doorsteps of the hospital.

---

Back to the original story, apparently 3 dogs and 1 cat burned to death in the blaze.
Still proud of those brave firefighters?

You wouldn't bleed to death because that would be classed as a medical emergency. What would happen if say I ran a delivery company. I have the option of paying insurance that would cover the cost of repairing my delivery van if it ever broke down. This would be a sensible and logical thing to do. However, if I said screw that I am not paying insurance , 6 months later the engine blows and I can't afford to pay to replace or fix it. Whose fault is that? Should the mechanic fix it for free or should the car salesman give me a new van?

There is always a time where we have to accept responsibility for our own actions.

Celly Smunt

orourkeda wrote: »

I just hope they had house insurance

if they have the insurance they won't get paid,it's america,also its probably in the policy that you must pay the contribution to the fire service to claim

Herb Powell

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.

I love you
well , I mean I agree with you completely :pac:

Stekelly wrote: »

More likely outcome of them putting it out is he figures "meh, whats the chance of my house burning down twice" and still doesnt pay the fee.

so? I meant the fire department get the money that they were owed afterwards. it was his choice in the first place right? according to your side of the debate anyway. Ye can't really say ye support both.

Guy:Incognito

Herb Powell wrote: »

so? I meant the fire department get the money that they were owed afterwards. .

From where?

If one person doesnt pay but gets a service anyway, wheres the incentinve for anyone to pay? Pretty soon the fire service has no money.

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

If it's my job to do so, then yes. There are wider effects to be considered other than just this guy's house. If a precedent is started that the department's resources will be overstretched to anyone who calls regardless of their entitlements, then that can be detremental to everyone, such as the aforementioned city-dweller in my hypothetical. You can bet that everyone else outside the city who has been contemplating paying or not paying the annual $75 is suddenly re-evaluating their decision in light of this guy's misfortune.

Here's a real-world example of a similar situation. I'm driving in my tank up a road in Iraq, escorting a convoy. I've got plenty of rations in the bustle rack. A dishevilled and obviously undernourished ten-year-old is standing by the roadside, pleading for food or water. Do I throw her some food or no?

The compassionate, immediate answer is obvious. Of course I do.

It is also entirely the more dangerous course of action in the long term. It became a direct instruction to NOT dispense food/water as kids kept getting hit by trucks as they would run into the roadway to chase the Americans who kept throwing food out at them. Is it an easy decision? No, not when you're looking at the kid crying. Is it the correct decision? Yes. The situation is no different here. The correct decision need not be the short-term compassionate one.

NTM

Where have we heard that before?

utter fcukin tripe! And not only that, your whole long-winded analogy there have fcuk all to do with standing by and letting a man's house burn down. Wasting resources, sure they could have broken out the marshmallows.

Amhran Nua

Stekelly wrote: »

From where?

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?

Guy:Incognito

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?

Again, he figures his house wont burn down a 2nd time so continues not paying.

Herb Powell

Stekelly wrote: »

From where?

If one person doesnt pay but gets a service anyway, wheres the incentinve for anyone to pay? Pretty soon the fire service has no money.

the man. it said he stopped paying for a year. which seems to suggest that he did pay before. so simples, just get him to pay the money he owes them. fire brigade gets money, man has house, everyone wins.

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?

^^^ther.

Amhran Nua

Stekelly wrote: »

Again, he figures his house wont burn down a 2nd time so continues not paying.

Haul him up before a court for money owed, same as any business.

Guy:Incognito

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Haul him up before a court for money owed, same as any business.

Are all the bleedign hearts not out in force here about the "poor innocent " people getting hauled up for none payments of fines etc? It cant work both ways.

If you were working in the fire service would you be happy enough to wait for your wages while they bring people to court to get thier fees?

gizmo

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?

Because the service needs a constant stream of revenue to survive, not occasional payments from people who happen to be affected.

Herb Powell

gizmo wrote: »

Because the service needs a constant stream of revenue to survive, not occasional payments from people who happen to be affected.

It appears to be the same fuppin thing
€75 per........year is it?

Amhran Nua

Stekelly wrote: »

Are all the bleedign hearts not out in force here about the "poor innocent " people getting hauled up for none payments of fines etc? It cant work both ways.

What? Who was complaining about "innocent" defaulters?

gizmo wrote: »

Because the service needs a constant stream of revenue to survive, not occasional payments from people who happen to be affected.

$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.

Guy:Incognito

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.

It's ten years payment for 1 house.

Again , wheres the incentive for people to keep paying when they see other people gettign the service while not paying?

Amhran Nua

Stekelly wrote: »

It's ten years payment for 1 house.

Again , wheres the incentive for people to keep paying when they see other people gettign the service while not paying?

Not having to pay ten years payment all at once? Your alternative is to risk peoples' lives, is it?

gizmo

$750 is ten years payment for one house, or one years payment for ten houses. If this lump payment was brought in why would people bother with the subscription? How many fires are they likely to have in 10 years, if ever? Many people would assume **** all probably and just not pay which means the annual income for the fire service goes down, which then threatens it's very existence for everyone else. All of this because some tight arse didn't want to pay $75 a year for it who then, instead of reflecting on his own stupidity, goes and assaults a person.

Amhran Nua

gizmo wrote: »

$750 is ten years payment for one house, or one years payment for ten houses. If this lump payment was brought in why would people bother with the subscription? How many fires are they likely to have in 10 years, if ever? Many people would assume **** all probably and just not pay which means the annual income for the fire service goes down, which then threatens it's very existence for everyone else.

Complete nonsense. The fee is already optional, and why add $750 onto an already steep rebuilding cost? And once again, what would you say if there were a child trapped in the house? There wasn't, but the next one might.

Manic Moran

karma_ wrote: »

And not only that, your whole long-winded analogy there have fcuk all to do with standing by and letting a man's house burn down. Wasting resources, sure they could have broken out the marshmallows.

It's entirely relevant. Terry's argument (and I presume yours) is that compassion should be allowed to rule. That if personally faced with someone's particular hardship that you can do something about that you are morally obliged to act to assist.

My "long-winded analogy" is a perfect example to the contrary. What seems to be the 'decent' and 'human' thing to do at first blush can be more harmful in the long run.

NTM

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

My "long-winded analogy" is a perfect example to the contrary.

Except its got zero to do with this very different situation. Had there been human lives lost in the fire, would you still agree with the fire department's "principled stand"?

gizmo

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Complete nonsense. The fee is already optional, and why add $750 onto an already steep rebuilding cost? And once again, what would you say if there were a child trapped in the house? There wasn't, but the next one might.

The fee is optional however it is the people that are already paying for it that need to keep paying for it to ensure the service continues, so no, it's not nonsense.

If they had called and specifically said someone was still inside? I would have been there in an instant. But there wasn't and the fire services showed the dude's property the same level as respect as he himself showed it by not paying the pittance of a subscription.

Seriously though, did you watch the interview? Three years ago it happened to his son, they hadn't paid but the fire services came out and let them off. The next day they paid the money. Why the **** didn't they pay it from then on? It's quite simple, they thought they could get away with it again, just pay the $75 if we have a fire. The mayor of the town put it perfectly, it's like trying to buy car insurance after you've crashed your car.

sock puppet

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Complete nonsense. The fee is already optional, and why add $750 onto an already steep rebuilding cost? And once again, what would you say if there were a child trapped in the house? There wasn't, but the next one might.

It isn't really nonsense. $750 dollars is only 10 years worth of payments so if you're house caught fire once in your lifetime then not paying for the service saves you money. Something like a $5000 charge would be a better idea as most people would struggle to pay it.

Amhran Nua

gizmo wrote: »

The fee is optional however it is the people that are already paying for it that need to keep paying for it to ensure the service continues, so no, it's not nonsense.

If they had called and specifically said someone was still inside? I would have been there in an instant. But there wasn't and the fire services showed the dude's property the same level as respect as he himself showed it by not paying the pittance of a subscription.

Seriously though, did you watch the interview? Three years ago it happened to his son, they hadn't paid but the fire services came out and let them off. The next day they paid the money. Why the **** didn't they pay it from then on? It's quite simple, they thought they could get away with it again, just pay the $75 if we have a fire. The mayor of the town put it perfectly, it's like trying to buy car insurance after you've crashed your car.

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.

And away from the possiblity of someone not being aware there is another person in the house, fires have a nasty tendency to spread. No, I have no sympathy for the fire department in this case, at a minimum they should have themselves better organised.

karma_

Thought this was a great post from a fireman, from the comments thread of the OP's link

I've been a firefighter for 38 years now. I like it that children wave to me and my community regards me as a hero. I know that people regard my work as more than a job and expect me to go "above and beyond" the minimums my contract demands. I expect this of myself too and I am proud to be part of the international brotherhood (and now sisterhood) of firefighters worldwide. There are many issues in this event, perhaps too many to address in a simple comment, but one bottom line is this. If the firefighters and their tanker truck were on scene and could have prevented a brush fire getting to a house those in this wordwide fraternity of firefighters that I respect would have done just that and let the rest of it be sorted out later. They shame themselves and they shame the rest of us by association.

Manic Moran

Except its got zero to do with this very different situation. Had there been human lives lost in the fire, would you still agree with the fire department's "principled stand"?

If everyone present was confident that there was nobody in danger, which appears to have been the case, then yes. If a burglar or some such happened to be in the house without their knowledge, sucks to be him. It's something of a life-threatening career in the US to begin with.

And starving can result in death, by the way. Just takes a bit longer and can be messier.

NTM

gizmo

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.

I don't know that for sure of course, but common sense dictates that if the service needs to be paid for at all, it requires funds for maintenance and if payment from this guy's community is reactionary like his, the service would have to cease.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And away from the possiblity of someone not being aware there is another person in the house, fires have a nasty tendency to spread. No, I have no sympathy for the fire department in this case, at a minimum they should have themselves better organised.

Given the timeline of events I'm quite sure the firemen assessed the probability of that happening and decided not to go out. Of course none of us know that but these are firemen at the end of the day, they're the best equipped people to make those kind of calls.

Also take into consideration the offers of more money to come out, all of which were refused. As has been said by numerous posters, this wasn't a question of $75, this was a question of the effect the incident would have on everyone else's payment and as such, the survival of the service. Something that guy clearly didn't give a crap about given his non-payment and his refusal to accept any responsibility.

karma_

gizmo wrote: »

I don't know that for sure of course, but common sense dictates that if the service needs to be paid for at all, it requires funds for maintenance and if payment from this guy's community is reactionary like his, the service would have to cease.


Given the timeline of events I'm quite sure the firemen assessed the probability of that happening and decided not to go out. Of course none of us know that but these are firemen at the end of the day, they're the best equipped people to make those kind of calls.

Also take into consideration the offers of more money to come out, all of which were refused. As has been said by numerous posters, this wasn't a question of $75, this was a question of the effect the incident would have on everyone else's payment and as such, the survival of the service. Something that guy clearly didn't give a crap about given his non-payment and his refusal to accept any responsibility.

Yet, the majority of firemen who are offering opinion on this incident think it's a disgrace.

You know what, I am happy every day that the folk who believe it was right and proper to let this house burn down are not in a position of power over me, and I pity the people who you do have power over.

gizmo

karma_ wrote: »

Yet, the majority of firemen who are offering opinion on this incident think it's a disgrace.

You know what, I am happy every day that the folk who believe it was right and proper to let this house burn down are not in a position of power over me, and I pity the people who you do have power over.

Firemen whose jobs, I can only assume, do not depend on whether a community pays a subscription for the service.

And likewise I pity the people who would put their own greed over the wellbeing of the rest of the community, which is exactly what happened here.

Ronin247

The thing that annoys me is that people like this non payer and all his apologists forget that if he doesnt pay then everyone else does.

If, for example, 10% never pay then the price rises for the 90% who do pay.If everyone paid the cost would go down.A certain percentage of your car insurance goes to a fund to pay out costs where uninsured drivers have accidents.

It is the same crap as the NAMA bullsh*t where if there is no "moral hazard" then the same mistakes will be repeated in future.

In every village,town and city there are always the few who do not pull their weight and they are always the first to whinge that they are not treated fairly.

They should have poured gasoline on his f*cking house and toasted marshmallows.Why should everyone else pay for his own laziness and stupidity.

Amhran Nua

Manic Moran wrote: »

If everyone present was confident that there was nobody in danger

And what happens when every call that comes in claims there is someone inside the house? And maybe a child came home from school early. This irresponsible attitude is how tragedies happen.

gizmo wrote: »

I don't know that for sure of course, but common sense dictates that if the service needs to be paid for at all, it requires funds for maintenance and if payment from this guy's community is reactionary like his, the service would have to cease.

I have just described for you exactly, in as many words, how the fire service could be guaranteed the same level of income as they previously enjoyed while making every callout in the event of a mysterious mass abdication of fiscal responsiblity.

gizmo wrote: »

Given the timeline of events I'm quite sure the firemen assessed the probability of that happening and decided not to go out.

Sure, they scried it through their crystal ball.

gizmo wrote: »

this was a question of the effect the incident would have on everyone else's payment and as such, the survival of the service.

So clearly it was someone's half assed power trip masquerading as social justice.

Amhran Nua

And lest we forget, folks...

Fires spread.

gizmo

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I have just described for you exactly, in as many words, how the fire service could be guaranteed the same level of income as they previously enjoyed while making every callout in the event of a mysterious mass abdication of fiscal responsiblity.

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.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Sure, they scried it through their crystal ball.

No, but they know the area and are professionally trained. They evidently used this knowledge to make an informed decision.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So clearly it was someone's half assed power trip masquerading as social justice.

Again this isn't social justice or power-tripping, this was a decision made based on the future of the scheme. Why do you refuse to admit even the possibility of the scheme falling apart due to his actions and people deciding not to bother with regular payments when a once off one will suffice?

Terry

Manic Moran wrote: »

If it's my job to do so, then yes. There are wider effects to be considered other than just this guy's house. If a precedent is started that the department's resources will be overstretched to anyone who calls regardless of their entitlements, then that can be detremental to everyone, such as the aforementioned city-dweller in my hypothetical. You can bet that everyone else outside the city who has been contemplating paying or not paying the annual $75 is suddenly re-evaluating their decision in light of this guy's misfortune.

Here's a real-world example of a similar situation. I'm driving in my tank up a road in Iraq, escorting a convoy. I've got plenty of rations in the bustle rack. A dishevilled and obviously undernourished ten-year-old is standing by the roadside, pleading for food or water. Do I throw her some food or no?

The compassionate, immediate answer is obvious. Of course I do.

It is also entirely the more dangerous course of action in the long term. It became a direct instruction to NOT dispense food/water as kids kept getting hit by trucks as they would run into the roadway to chase the Americans who kept throwing food out at them. Is it an easy decision? No, not when you're looking at the kid crying. Is it the correct decision? Yes. The situation is no different here. The correct decision need not be the short-term compassionate one.

NTM

Seriously?
You're comparing a starving child in an area in which your army has invaded to an innocent person's house burning down and the local fire brigade failing to act?

That's really ****ing low and slimy.

Then again, so is the American invasion of Iraq and the slaughter of innocent people. I suppose it it quite similar. Innocent people being ****ed over by a militant regime.
Hoo raah.

Mrmoe wrote: »

This is necessary for the safety of the wider community. As other people have said a precedent would be set which would lead to the demise of services of the whole community. There has to be consequences to our actions. It would be same way with medical treatment. Would you prioritise a smoker to get a new pair of lungs or another person who never smoked? People need to take more responsibility for their own lives. The home owner took a course of action armed with the knowledge that if his house caught fire that the fire brigade would have no obligation to help him.

I do not think it is the best system to have but once it is in place they have to live by it.

And FF are in government. It's not the best solution, blah blah blah.

Herb Powell wrote: »

I love you.

I love me too.
/kisses.

Coriolanus

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.

Mrmoe

More background information. They report that they simply forgot to pay the fee this year. If true I would have a bit more sympathy for them.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/06/woman-doesnt-blame-firefighters-let-home-burn/

Woman doesn't blame firefighters who let home burn
Published October 06, 2010 | Associated Press


A Tennessee woman says she doesn't blame the firefighters who watched while her house burned to the ground after her family failed to pay a $75 annual protection fee.

Paulette Cranick said Wednesday the firefighters who came to the scene were just following orders. Cranick said her family had paid the fee in the past but simply forgot it recently.

She's thankful no one was hurt in the fire last week that destroyed their doublewide trailer in rural northwest Tennessee.

Firefighters did not try to save the burning structure because Cranick's fee wasn't paid. Firefighters went to the scene to keep flames from spreading to nearby property whose owners had paid the fee.

Cranick and her husband are now living in their camper and a 21-year-old grandson who lived with them is living with his mother.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. (AP) — A Tennessee woman said Wednesday she doesn't blame the firefighters who watched while her house burned to the ground after her family failed to pay a $75 annual protection fee.

Paulette Cranik said the firefighters who came to the scene were just following orders. Her family had paid the fee in the past but simply forgot it recently. Cranik, 67, said she's just thankful no one was hurt in the fire last week that destroyed the doublewide trailer in rural northwest Tennessee.

"You can't blame them if they have to do what the boss says to do," Cranik told The Associated Press. "I've had firemen call and apologize."

Firefighters did not try to save the burning structure because Cranik had not paid the subscription fee for fire protection. Firefighters went to the scene to keep flames from spreading to nearby property whose owners had paid. The county does not have fire service, but rural residents can pay a fee to get service from the nearby town of South Fulton.

Her grandson, Lance Cranik, 21, who lived there with her and her husband, started the fire while burning trash in a barrel. He went inside to take a shower and upon returning saw a shed next to the house in flames. It spread despite his efforts to put it out with a garden hose.

Paulette Cranik said they had paid the fee in the past, although sometimes late, but it slipped their mind this year.

Lance Cranik said "this is something I've got to live with the rest of my life."

"To see the house and everything you grew up in burning down before your eyes is kind of harsh," he said.

He recalled that he called the fire department and asked them to come but they declined.

"I was in shock," he said.

Local officials did not immediately return phone calls Wednesday to The Associated Press for comment but have confirmed to local media that the family did not pay the fee.

Paulette Cranik and her husband are now living in their year-old camper and Lance is living with his mother. The family says it's received offers of help but that the aid isn't needed.

"We have insurance and are happy everyone is alive," she said.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects spelling of family's last name to Cranick)

Manic Moran

Then again, so is the American invasion of Iraq and the slaughter of innocent people. I suppose it it quite similar. Innocent people being ****ed over by a militant regime.
Hoo raah.

Would you care to actually address the argument instead of going off on a diatribe?

Your position appears to be based on compassion when faced directly with a hardship. It is misplaced. If you're going to feel compassion for someone, at least reserve it for people who are in an unfortunate situation due to no fault of their own. Not paying a small fee for a fire service doesn't count.

NTM

topper75

BluePlanet wrote: »

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

It's not free market economics that has us bailing out the banks BluePlanet. This country needs libertarian policies now more than ever. We need less govt, not more. And please God, the next budget will help that! (they'll be getting rid of more than €3b deadwood from the tax spend, albeit for the wrong reason). The firemen didn't think "me-first". They thought "whoever has bothered to pay -first". Makes sense. They have costs and salaries themselves to pay.

Logical Fallacy

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

would it be fair to say that libertarianism is a bit like social Darwinism?
I find this absolutely disgusting , and i bet if you asked those firemen what spiritual belief they hold they probably are Christian , what sort of Christian behaves like this.
Im a libertarian when it comes to things like drugs and alcohol , so im an al a carte libertarian i suppose.

How many weird leaps of logic can you take in one post? Cuz that right there is a good showing.

phantom_lord

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

Dravokivich

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

topper75

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

Amhran Nua

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.