-IMAGE-

 

Yeah guys, they got what they deserved for not paying the tax.

Just like he got what he deserved for having a growth spurt; an average life.

No one DESERVES to lose their house because they didn't pay a $75 fee. Like I said before, why couldn't the county/town/whatever just build the fee into property taxes? It's the governments job to keep people safe and provide public services, not let people's houses burn down. A house is a huge amount of money, losing it is devastating, especially when the fire department COULD have saved it but didn't because $75 is such a huge amount of money. I can see why some people would see that the family should have seen it coming, but they didn't DESERVE this.

If they pay taxes, they should be protected.

 

If they don't pay taxes, and didn't pay for fire protection, then it's their fault.

 

/Thread.

It's not taxes.

 

/thread re-open

 

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure the Fire Department couldn't see if you paid your taxes or not in the first place.

No one DESERVES to lose their house because they didn't pay a $75 fee. Like I said before, why couldn't the county/town/whatever just build the fee into property taxes? It's the governments job to keep people safe and provide public services, not let people's houses burn down. A house is a huge amount of money, losing it is devastating, especially when the fire department COULD have saved it but didn't because $75 is such a huge amount of money. I can see why some people would see that the family should have seen it coming, but they didn't DESERVE this.

Nobody said that they desvered it, and I don't know about you, but $75 is a lot of money, regardless of how rich you are. If someone handed you $75 you'd be happy and take it. You probably wouldn't spend it on fire protection either; now would you?

Damn, that sucks. Way is see it is all's fair though, as much as I think a fee is silly, fact is the guy didn't want to pay (would be different if he couldn't) and therefore basically deserved what he got.

If they didn't pay the fee, they do deserve it. Even if they shouldn't of had to pay it, and should have been protected. If you had to choose between $75, and your house being protected, which one would you pick?

Personally as it's a volunteer non paid service in my area, I find the actions disgusting and sad that they would dispatch to a house knowing it didn't have protection.

 

Missed this. They refused to go out until the fire spread to a neighbor's house, who did pay for the protection.

What I'd be interested in knowing is if it became a wildfire, how they would have treated it.

So basically America does have a private fire department? Dam you Moore! You lied to me!

 

And quick history lesson on the origins of the fire department.

 

In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licinius Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of its worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.

 

This is why the fire department is supposed to get funding from general taxes and is supposed to be free, so peoples lives arn't endangered like this. Can you imagine if police refused to go to a house because that person didn't pay taxes?

 

Ah well, glad i'm a Canadian.

Normally I'm one to say you deserve the consequences of your actions [or lack thereof] but this is just immoral as it deprived someone a basic necessity [of shelter]. This is comparable to a doctor not helping a patient because they cannot pay.

 

 

Read bows post, really. I agree with him 24/7. DRs are required by law to treat everyone, even if no insurance. However, they are not required to save anyone's house. All the people were safe obviously. And tbh, if they needed to put out the fire to get the people out of there, they would.

It is really shallow to make it sound like doctors help people who cannot pay just because the law requires them to do so. The firefighters have a moral obligation to extinguish fires inside the range of their capacity. What one should or should not do is not dependent upon the law, it just generally correlates, or at least we attempt to make them do so. So it is comparable to a doctor and not refusing to serve someone due to their inability to pay. Just because you can ignore something doesn't mean you should. And shelter is a defined necessity of life so allowing someone's house to burn down in a theoritcal sense is more severe than loosing a limb, as all four limbs are not defined as a necessity of life.

Normally I'm one to say you deserve the consequences of your actions [or lack thereof] but this is just immoral as it deprived someone a basic necessity [of shelter]. This is comparable to a doctor not helping a patient because they cannot pay.

 

 

Read bows post, really. I agree with him 24/7. DRs are required by law to treat everyone, even if no insurance. However, they are not required to save anyone's house. All the people were safe obviously. And tbh, if they needed to put out the fire to get the people out of there, they would.

It is really shallow to make it sound like doctors help people who cannot pay just because the law requires them to do so. The firefighters have a moral obligation to extinguish fires inside the range of their capacity. What one should or should not do is not dependent upon the law, it just generally correlates, or at least we attempt to make them do so. So it is comparable to a doctor and not refusing to serve someone due to their inability to pay. Just because you can ignore something doesn't mean you should. And shelter is a defined necessity of life so allowing someone's house to burn down in a theoritcal sense is more severe than loosing a limb, as all four limbs are not defined as a necessity of life.

 

You also have to think about the firefighters. They probably were ordered by the chief to not put out the fire. If they used the departments resources without permission, there would be hell to pay for them. Also, putting out a fire is not without risks, is it?

Aparently there were three dogs and a cat in the house when it burned down.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html

 

So what would have happend if there would have been people trapped inside?

It is really shallow to make it sound like doctors help people who cannot pay just because the law requires them to do so.

 

It's actually true, and I'm very involved with the situation. No pay? No care. Just because someone is a Dr, does not make them a good person.

 

The firefighters have a moral obligation to extinguish fires inside the range of their capacity.

 

According to your morals. My morals are you get what you pay for.

 

What one should or should not do is not dependent upon the law, it just generally correlates, or at least we attempt to make them do so.

 

Not necessarily.

 

So it is comparable to a doctor and not refusing to serve someone due to their inability to pay. Just because you can ignore something doesn't mean you should.

 

Again, your opinion. I believe the exact opposite. (I honestly do, no sarcasm. Just because someone else thinks you should do something that is beneficial to them or others, doesn't mean you should. It's like forcing philanthropy.

 

And shelter is a defined necessity of life so allowing someone's house to burn down in a theoritcal sense is more severe than loosing a limb, as all four limbs are not defined as a necessity of life.

 

I agree with you, except for the necessity of life part. As in I concur with the idea, but people can and do live without homes while still leading successful lives. I've read stories *and witnessed* homeless people leading ordinary lives and no one knew they were homeless. They simply used public showers in the morning in places. (One person lived by the oceanfront and used the shower people use to wash out the sand.)

The worst part about this is that the family offered to pay the fine right then and there, but the firemen still wouldn't accept it. However, they decided to spray the boundaries of the family's lawn to protect their (paying) neighbors. -.-

I guess if they didn't pay for it....

 

but imo they still should've saved it, now it will cost even more money to rebuild from the ground up <_<

 

why couldn't they just save the house, then force them to sell some of their luxuries later or something? Btw, i have not read the article since the page won't load for me.

the family offered to pay the fine right then and there

 

Of course they would. Same as anyone with a newly diagnosed health condition would love to have health insurance. Or someone in an car wreck. Sure I'll pay your small fee now, so you can dump more money on me. That's not how insurance works.

The worst part about this is that the family offered to pay the fine right then and there, but the firemen still wouldn't accept it. However, they decided to spray the boundaries of the family's lawn to protect their (paying) neighbors. -.-

 

Not that I'm defending it, but what the above poster said. If they were allowed to do this, then nobody would pay the fee until their house went up in flames

Am I the only one that's disturbed by the whole incident? Even if it was okay to first deny them service, you still have an awful scenario, where the more than capable firefighters are forced to sit there and watch somebody's home burn, letting their pets die in the fire.

 

And you can't even compare it to a hospital, since the homeowners were offering to pay not only the $75, but the whole costs of putting the fire down. But the offer was refused. Even in the US, the uninsured can still see a doctor and pay on their own, can't they? If you are going to the extreme and see the fire department as a service provider, it's just immoral not to allow them to do their job for a fee.

 

A libertarian dream, almost.

Why did they let it burn anyway.

 

And didnt try to douse it themselves.

Why did they let it burn anyway.

 

And didnt try to douse it themselves.

 

I don't get why they didn't try the obvious. Piss on it

And you can't even compare it to a hospital, since the homeowners were offering to pay not only the $75, but the whole costs of putting the fire down. But the offer was refused. Even in the US, the uninsured can still see a doctor and pay on their own, can't they? If you are going to the extreme and see the fire department as a service provider, it's just immoral not to allow them to do their job for a fee.

 

Think about it this way (generically of course, not this specific situation). House fires like this are very rare events, few and far between. The fire department has to exist first before they can put out fires. Keeping a fire department requires hiring several people full time, and buying all that expensive equipment. If everyone paid the fire department only when they needed it, the fire department wouldn't receive enough funding to exist.

 

Apply that lesson here. If everyone in their subscription base (areas outside the city) knew that the fire department would still respond to a house fire even if they hadn't paid, what's the point of paying up front to begin with? House fires are rare, and the $75 will probably never go to saving your house.

I agree that a different fee schedule could be charged - $75 up front will give your house protection for a year, covering all costs. Houses that elect to not pay the up front fee will be charged the amount or more that it takes to put the fire out (gets expensive very quickly).

 

 

You'll hear if you watch the embedded video in the ABC link that the county where the live in is looking to establish a fire department, and that legislation is in the works. Unfortunately its several weeks (20 years) too late.

Weather they deserved it or not is not the issue... it is disgusting from a moral standpoint to stand there and watch someone's house burn to the ground while it is in your power to save it. Doesn't even matter if they did something stupid to set the fire. Doesn't even matter if they were total jerkasses about paying the fine. If you're going to let that stop you from being kind to them, then the world is just that much meaner.

Weather they deserved it or not is not the issue... it is disgusting from a moral standpoint to stand there and watch someone's house burn to the ground while it is in your power to save it. Doesn't even matter if they did something stupid to set the fire. Doesn't even matter if they were total jerkasses about paying the fine. If you're going to let that stop you from being kind to them, then the world is just that much meaner.

 

 

 

Your morals, it's perfectly acceptable by my standards. Everyone takes risks, I encourage everyone to take more, but beware, there are consequences.

Weather they deserved it or not is not the issue... it is disgusting from a moral standpoint to stand there and watch someone's house burn to the ground while it is in your power to save it. Doesn't even matter if they did something stupid to set the fire. Doesn't even matter if they were total jerkasses about paying the fine. If you're going to let that stop you from being kind to them, then the world is just that much meaner.

 

 

 

Your morals, it's perfectly acceptable by my standards. Everyone takes risks, I encourage everyone to take more, but beware, there are consequences.

 

And what, may I ask, is the logic behind enforcing such consequences to the point where one is completely devoid of compassion? There must be some reason behind your belief that has the interests of humanity as a whole in mind, right?

Not necesarilly, though by default I am a philanthropist, when it comes down to it I can be harsh if necessary. If you break a rule, you suffer the consequences, no if ands or buts. I think that's why capital punishment is such a hard topic for me to come to a descison on. I see the potential to repent and benefit the human race, but they still broke the rule.

 

The rule: Pay the $75.

 

reward? : YOu can sleep rest assured if your house catches on fire, it will be put out.

 

Punishment: You have to watch it burn down.

 

 

Let's face it, they played with fire, and they got burnt.

Not necesarilly, though by default I am a philanthropist, when it comes down to it I can be harsh if necessary. If you break a rule, you suffer the consequences, no if ands or buts. I think that's why capital punishment is such a hard topic for me to come to a descison on. I see the potential to repent and benefit the human race, but they still broke the rule.

 

The rule: Pay the $75.

 

reward? : YOu can sleep rest assured if your house catches on fire, it will be put out.

 

Punishment: You have to watch it burn down.

 

 

Let's face it, they played with fire, and they got burnt.

This approach to governing does not benefit the community as a whole, and, if applied often, will only create dissent.

 

I agree that a government should lead its people to think it will govern this way. But I do not agree that they should stand by the principle in an extreme situation like this one.