Firefighters watch house burn to ground.

[billymills]

Did you bother to read what I said?

 

[Thorns]

i get the feeling that the firefighters didn't put out the fire because doing so would make people think 'my house isn't gonna catch fire, i'm not gonna pay the $75'. when their houses burn down, they sue the fire department, and it ends up with a lot more complication. they didn't want to set the family to set an example

however it's unfair that the neighbour's tree caught fire. they should have put that out.

 

[Not Scicky]

So I say you're wrong and you say I'm wrong.

What are you going to do about it? Nothing you can do. Period.

Welcome to the internet.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Did you bother to read what I said?

Of course I did.

@Scicky-- exactly.

 

[Invective]

What this title should read is "Group of workers are not paid to perform a service, and as such, do not perform said service."

 

[Not Scicky]

And that's completely understandable. But see, I am not even a Firefighter, and had I seen a house burning down, I would've tried my best to help, though I am not at all qualified to do so. Why? Because I couldn't bear to let someone's possessions and home burn. As such, I'd expect someone who IS qualified, and who does this for a living, to want to do the same. One would think a firefighter would be a firefighter to... well... fight fires, not MAEK BIG BUKS.

 

[Llama]

What this title should read is "Group of workers are not paid to perform a service, and as such, do not perform said service."

Yes this is true, but the issue of morality comes into play because this group of workers happen to be people in charge of protecting from fire, the livelihood / lives of people. These firefighters arrived at the scene, put fire out from a tree on the neighbors yard, and then watched a family's life burn down in front of them with four animals inside the house. So clearly your idea of the title does not do justice to the issue.

Also to clarify I side with the idea that this fire department should have a system where if they report to a fire on private property, that has not paid, whoever owns that property must pay the full expenses of resources used by the firefighters in putting the fire out.

 

[Shy Glizzy]

If you have to pay to have the firefighters work for you, and you don't pay, then they don't work for you. Examples have to be set or no one would pay. Thats how most insurance companies work too.

For instance, if they put out the fire and I was a family that paid the 75 dollar fee, i would stop paying immediately. Why should I have to pay when on the off chance I do get a fire they will put it out and save my pets too for free?

On account that the firefighters were assholes/evil etc. Why should they feel obligated to risk their lives to help a family that wont even pay 75 measly dollars a year for protection?

 

[Not Scicky]

I agree that really, they shouldn't have to risk their lives, but picking up a fucking hose isn't exactly !!DANGER DANGER!!, if a house is allowed to burn because an example needs to be made so the system doesn't get fucked, then perhaps it's time for a change in the system?

 

[Chou Toshio]

Also to clarify I side with the idea that this fire department should have a system where if they report to a fire on private property, that has not paid, whoever owns that property must pay the full expenses of resources used by the firefighters in putting the fire out.

That would definitely be a better system, though I think the fine should be much more-- probably significantly more expensive than just paying for the resources. It is not enough to just "break even" economically. You have to pay for people's time and effort as well, and in this case, it would be inpart a fine/penalty for precuring servies without properly paying for them. I would say it should be at least double the expenses, expenses including the daily salaries of the fire fighters involved.

 

[billymills]

That would definitely be a better system, though I think the fine should be much more-- probably significantly more expensive than just paying for the resources. It is not enough to just "break even" economically. You have to pay for people's time and effort as well, and in this case, it would be inpart a fine/penalty for precuring servies without properly paying for them. I would say it should be at least double the expenses, expenses including the daily salaries of the fire fighters involved.

I like the complete about face: initially claiming that all possibilities are equally valid then suddenly claiming that one system is 'definitely better'.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Billy, did you even read my posts?

Before I was broadly discussing the ethics (or rather the innocence) of inaction. (tl;dr was talking about right and wrong)

Now I am discussing the economics/financing/servicing policy of non-public fire-fighting services. (tl;dr am talking about money)

There is no hypocrisy because these are two completely separate issues. My views on the first issue regarding ethics, has nothing to do with my opinions on business models and policy plans. It is clear that a deep fine policy system makes far more economic sense than letting houses burn or trying to "make examples" of people. Did I, at any point, in my above post say that a fine system is better because of some ethics issue? No, it is "definitely better" from an economic standpoint.

There is a round-about connection between the two, but they are essentially separate issues. Please try to follow the thread of discussion.

 

[Hipmonlee]

You also need to pay for the maintenance of the fire department in the time they havent been paying their levees. So the fee should be significant.

But yeah, thinking about what is inside a house, and the wastefulness of letting it burn.. Maybe a lot of it couldnt have been saved anyway, but it seems pretty horrible.

Have a nice day.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Good point Hipmonlee. The fee should be even higher due to their lack of contribution to the continued maintenance of the fire department. Totally agreeing there.

 

[billymills]

Billy, did you even read my posts?

Before I was broadly discussing the ethics (or rather the innocence) of inaction.

Now I am discussing the economics/financing/servicing policy of non-public fire-fighting services.

There is no hypocrisy because these are two completely separate issue. My opinions on the first issue regarding ethics, has nothing to do with my views on business models and policy plans. It is clear that a deep fine policy system makes far more economic sense than letting houses burn or trying to "make examples" of people.

There is a round-about connection between the two, but they are essentially separate issues. Please try to follow the thread of discussion.

There is absolutely no reason to claim they are separate issues. You can claim they're doing the right/wrong thing, or you can claim that both positions are equally valid.

There is certainly hypocrisy as you first decided that it was irrelevant which position they took because inaction was completely valid, then argued that a different system is far better because it would have discouraged inaction.

If inaction is completely valid why should it be discouraged by promoting a new system? If the ethics on both sides are equivalent why should one be favored over another?

Either you are being really hypocritical, or you're just being pedantic regarding moral relativity.

EDIT: not wasting another post on this but no, you've frankly just proved my point.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Let me summarize my posts so they are easier to understand:

Sorry cantab, and I hate grouping people and making wide generalizations-- but you brought Britain in the picture, and frankly I hate it when Europeans try to shove their values and concept of what "human decency" is on other cultures and societies.

The act of "helping others" is a great act because it is something you choose to do of your own will.

The act of "not choosing to help others," is frankly not evil. I find the your concept of "moral obligation" ridiculous-- you help others because it is good and so you choose to do so, but simply not choosing to do so, being inactive, is not wrong.

What is wrong is thinking you have the right to tell people that they have an "obligation to help others," when helping others is something you do out of voluntary good will.

Summarized: (personal opinion statement) There is no evil in inaction. Helping others is a good act that comes from one's own will to do good. There is nothing unethical about not helping.

That would definitely be a better system, though I think the fine should be much more-- probably significantly more expensive than just paying for the resources. It is not enough to just "break even" economically. You have to pay for people's time and effort as well, and in this case, it would be inpart a fine/penalty for precuring servies without properly paying for them. I would say it should be at least double the expenses, expenses including the daily salaries of the fire fighters involved.

Summarized: A heavy fine system makes more sense than inaction because it makes the fire department money.


Do you see how these two opinions are completely unrelated, and thus can easily exist in the same person without any hypocrisy?

You are free to disagree with any of my opinions, but I am sorry but you fall flat on your face if you try accuse me of hypocrisy for any (non-existant) conflict between the two above opinions.

 

[Deck Knight]

I had heard that the homeowners in question had stunted the fee not this one time, but also previously. So in other words they not only chose to live in an area without its own fire department, they repeatedly shrifted the fee to cover their house. They were apparently not the only people shirking the fee in the area as well.

Firefighters don't really "save lives" as their primary duty, it's a secondary effect (and only happens if the people inside aren't smart enough (or perhaps are infirm and incapable of doing so) to detect the fire and get out quickly, subsequently being stuck inside.) Thier primary function is to save property and prevent more property damage. They still put fires out whether all the people/animals inside are safe or alternatively dead before the FD shows up.

At some point the homeowners have culpability when they know a function of where they have chosen to live is without fire protection unless a fee is paid to bring in firefighters from a distant town with its own limited fire resources. When they do not pay that fee, repeatedly, and in great numbers because there is an entitlement assumption on firefighting, this is the end result. Everyone feels bad and people blame the FD, even though these residents could be getting a service for free while the residents of the actual coverage town are burning because they got sent to save these clowns.

A privatized fire department would not work anything like this, because in a privatized fire department you would pay a premium with the expectation of superior service. Moreover a privatized fire department would likely install a more advanced detection system so they can monitor your location even if you are away. In total absense of a public fire department to cover the uninsured homes, I imagine there would be some way to control larger, catastrophic fires. A privatized department would also be less centralized, meaning more locations for storing equipment and trucks. Furthermore, a privatized department would probably have clauses for gross negligence among other things, as well as regular fire inspections as part of the cost for all subscribers.

 

[ShinyAzelf]

Wow, that is terrible. Choose not to pay 75 bucks and lose your lives. I would definitely pay that extra money, but still, the firefighters are assholes to not have done anything even when people's lives were at risk. Shows the attitude of people.

 

[Bad Ass]

This has been repeated many times? How exactly are they assholes? Because they are not doing a job that they were not fucking paid to do? Get that through your heads. If you refuse to pay someone, they do not have to do it. It's like going to a mechanic when your car breaks down, asking them to fix it, and when they refuse they are now an asshole.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

First of all, the family should have been forced to pay the 75$ annual free through taxes. Secondly, the firefighters should have still helped despite the fact that the family in question refused to pay; firefighters are not part of a company, they are part of the government which must help its citizens when it can.

 

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

This is hilarious, regardless of "moral obligation" the world doesn't run on smiles and good feelings.

If you want to blame anything other than the family, don't blame the firefighters but perhaps blame the entire currency system since people apparently believe the world should just run on moral obligations.

 

[Trax]

This has been repeated many times? How exactly are they assholes? Because they are not doing a job that they were not fucking paid to do? Get that through your heads. If you refuse to pay someone, they do not have to do it. It's like going to a mechanic when your car breaks down, asking them to fix it, and when they refuse they are now an asshole.

You pay the mechanic when he fixes your car, you do not pay a yearly toll.

Your argument is invalid, try again you dumb shit.

 

[Mike B]

You pay the mechanic when he fixes your car, you do not pay a yearly toll.

Your argument is invalid, try again you dumb shit.

it's like

 

[cantab]

It's like going to a mechanic when your car breaks down, asking them to fix it, and when they refuse they are now an asshole.

The difference is that your car breaking down won't destroy thousands of dollars worth of real estate, and usually won't kill pets and damage your neighbours property.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

The difference is that your car breaking down won't destroy thousands of dollars worth of real estate, and usually won't kill pets and damage your neighbours property.

A probably imbecile question, but is there in USA a law forcing you to help your brother when in life/death need?