The Glade 4.0

Actually, I liken this to my flood insurance.

I'd be amazed if they accepted my application and premiums after my house started flooding. In fact the policy states that I must have had a policy in place for 60 (or 90, I'm not sure) days before the policy becomes effective. The annual fee is about $300. We have levees on all sides, surrounded by rivers, canals, and the northeastern edge of the Delta. My town hasn't had a flood in over 100 years. That does not mean we won't have one this year, or next year. I've lost that gamble each of the last 22 years. I'm fine with that. I've known a few people in other parts of this valley that have not been so lucky as to lose that gamble. They lost way more than I've spent in total on the flood insurance and amazingly, the insurance companies don't seem terribly interested in paying claims they haven't been paid premiums for, imagine that.

Most fire insurance comes in compensation for losses due to fire. The fire insurance here comes in the form of a pre-paid firefighters fee. I understand the reluctance of the firefighters and the company to fight a fire on the property of a non-insured homeowner.

The whole concept of firefighters brings to mind either the professional firefighter in urban and suburban areas, or the volunteer firefighters of more rural areas. These iconic entities are not the case here. This is a whole separate kind of professional fire fighting company. I don't think the home owner gets the concept that the service is insurance, not entitlement.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Insurance is a macabre gamble. You are betting that something bad will happen to you. It is a bet you are happy to lose.

This man chose to not take the gamble. And he lost.

The outrage expressed is an extension of entitlementitis that states that "I" should get what I want, at no cost to myself. It is "owed" to me. This is what is killing medical care, and what may kill this country.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

I think there are 2 sides to this coin.

One is the side that you've stated. I want all these things but I'm not willing to pay for them. Whether that is by taxes or surcharges, etc. The other is those who claim they don't want those things (like this guy) but when the **** hits the fan, whine and ***** about what's happened and come asking everyone else for help.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

$75 a year is OMFG cheap. Here in Arizona, we have a lot of areas covered by Rural/Metro, a private firefighting/emergency services company. They cover mostly unincorporated county land...just about all the large towns cancelled their contracts with them to set up their own municipal departments. Subscriptions are usually determined by either structure square footage or number of structures on the property...and IIRC, a house I rented in their coverage area would have been in the neighborhood of $700 annually. They would put out fires for non-subscribers, however...after finishing with subscriber calls and getting a large payment beforehand.

Subscription models are a sucky way to provide fire protection. Think about it: the fire department puts out fires to prevent the fire from getting larger and spreading to other properties and NOT to minimize damage to stuff that's already burning. In the course of putting out the fire, the stuff in the building will get water and demolition damage on top of any smoke and heat damage that's already occurred.

_________________
Women are from Hoboken, men are from Trenton. ~ Jimmy Kimmel

I'm thinking the "what ifs" demonstrate what a bad idea this is, for instance:

What if it had been the neighbor's house that caught fire, instead of his field? The neighbor had paid for fire protection.

What if someone in the neighbor's house or yard had been injured or killed? See above.

This is a bad idea and I hope this forces changes in how fire protection is handled in that area.

Typically in cases like this, the FD responds to the fire regardlesss of coverage. If the property doesn't have coverage, the FD is there to prevent it from spreading to other properties, such as those adjacent and covered.


The FD is responding, and is obligated to perform rescue services in the case of someone trapped inside the a burning building, using whatever precautions are necessary to ensure the lives of the responders and the individual. It does not mean they will continue to fight the fire once the individuals are safe.


Its a perfectly acceptable concept that works well in a vast majority of the cases.

You've got the order of causation backwards there, Khross. To paraphrase Saint Ronald, "Lawyers don't sue people; people sue people."

No, really, I don't.

_________________

You don't see enablers being the problem? Whenever I witness some deplorable conduct, my first thought is "how has it come to this...who has allowed this person to be this way for so long that they feel it's perfectly appropriate"?

I blame parents, too.

Things really went to hell when Lawyers started advertising.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I disagree, at least in reference to my own distaste for how this played out. I don't think people are entitled to receive help when disaster strikes, but I do think people are obligated to provide such help to others (morally, not legally, of course). There's a big difference between those two views, and unfortunately, I think the simplistic libertarian caricature of "you get what you pay for and that's it" misses the distinction.

Not really, no. People choose to smoke, eat crap, drive recklessly, shoot each other, sue each other, etc. I think the problem is the people who make those choices; not the tobacco companies, fast food restaurants, bars, gun manufacturers, or lawyers who "enable" them. Oddly, liberals generally blame the enablers and conservatives generally blame the people actually making the choice, except when it comes to lawyers, in which case they switch sides.

All your cases are pro-bono RD?

You think charity and kindness are all-or-nothing propositions?

I don't see how you can have a moral obligation to provide help to someone who

A) knows they may need that help
B) knows it costs to provide it
C) Has the opportunity to pay a pittance of that cost in order to help not only themselves but anyone else who disaster may strike
D) Doesn't pay it, even though they are capable of doing so

There's no libertarian caricature of "you get what you pay for and that's it", at least not here on this board. There is a major issue that providing help to those who don't pay encourages others to not pay and degrades the help available to everyone.

The guy with his house burning down seems like a larger issue than he really is, in moral terms, because its an immediate and vivid image. Continued fire protection for everyone is really a larger moral imperative.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

From what I read in the article, Ladas, the F.D. was called, but they refused to come out at all, untill the neighbor's field was on fire. Which is my point. What if it had been the house, instead of the field? A timeline of:

Called, refused to respond, neighbor's house catches fire, respond, someone hurt or dead, is not the way to go. IMO, anyway.

You can't "what if" a reason they should have done something different. They acted based on the circumstances that existed, not some that could have existed. Constructing an entire chain of events based on a hypothetical situation in the first place and then claiming that what they did was a problem because this hypothetical could have existed is really not much of a reason they should have done differently.

Evidently someone informed them that the neighbor's property was in danger and they responded. If his house was close to the property line or the fire, then whoever informed them it was in danger would have included the fact that a house was in danger when they called the fire department, and they would have come out sooner. It's not like they don't live in the area and don't understand that its rural and there's lots of difference between houses.

The fact that it could have meant disaster for someone who did pay the fee doesn't obligate the fire department to come fight the fire for people who didn't pay. That's yet another incentive to not pay; if you have a fire just hold the danger to the neighbors over the heads of the firefighters. At best, this is a reason for them to come out and make sure to prevent it sprading from the property it started on.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sure I can. If the Cranicks had lost a family member in that fire, we wouldn't be having this conversation in this form at all.

Not the point of my question. You seemed to have taken a position in the post to which I was responding that you expected the FD to put out the fire, whether or not the fees were paid, but because the family was in need... a moral response compared to a legal.

Do you likewise expect yourself to take every case that walks in the door without compensation? After all, you have the ability to help those individuals facing a disaster (most people don't seek lawyers until it is).

And while I disagree with your implication that the lack recognition of the moral versus legal is a flaw of libertarian positions, you have done an excellent job of illustrating the flaw with liberal positions (and social conservatives)... something is great idea that everyone else should do, as long as it doesn't impact you, and if everyone else doesn't do what you think is morally correct, then something needs to be changed so they have to.

Sunchips is providing another good example of this tendency.

Ladas, doesn't the state give someone a public defender for free in cases of dire need?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

That would appear to be a problem of response from that particular department. The rural stations I am familiar with will respond to a call if for no other reason than to keep the fire from spreading to other properties and make sure there are no injuries. However, I also believe those departments will still charge for the call, much like you pay for an ambulance to respond if you call them, whether you needed or accepted transport.

That is one of the peculiarities of the legal profession yes. Most lawyers can be appointed to represent people facing criminal charges. There are some exceptions of course. However, those attorneys are also eligible for compensation from the state legal fund, or are directly paid by the state (PD office is a paid staff, as are contracts for PD). Not that every lawyer gets reimbursed, since the funds are typically depleted pretty early in the year, but there is supposed to be a mechanism for compensation.

That said, that is based upon need, and if you want to keep the analogy relevant, is your position that the homeowner was unable to pay the $75 annual fire fee? Or, is it an extension of RD's moral position that because the FD could have provided asssitance, they must? If so, then any client that walks into RD's office is in need, and as a lawyer, he has the unique ability to assist them.

Exactly. To use the ambulance as an example, suppose you were having a heart attack and called an ambulance. Do you want them wasting precious minutes checking to see if you have any outstanding debt to them before they come to get you, and then have them refuse because you had a bill that was past due? Of course you don't. Should you have paid the bill in a timely fashion? Of course, but that's not the issue now, because you're dying.

Which is my point. In an emergency situation, you should ALWAYS deal with the emergency first, then deal with other issues later. Anything less is, imo, inhumane. If you're in an position that dealing with emergencies is your profession and you can't keep that simple concept in mind, then go get a job digging ditches. Again, just my opinion.

Ladas: My position is a little bit of both.
Perhaps the guy couldn't afford it, but even if he could and he just didn't pay, I don't see how letting the dude's house burn down is ok.
You don't pay your car note, it gets reposessed. You don't pay your house note, it gets foreclosed on.....you don't pay $75, they let your house burn to the ground?
Yeah the dude should have paid the $75, but I really don't think its ok to just let his house burn because of it.
I also don't think the lawyer analogy fits either.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

^^ This.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I disagree. If anyone were trapped in the house they would have an obligation to rescue them because that is humane. Property however is not a life-or-death matter.

Interesting side-question, what if it was a car-fire for an out-of-town visitor? They clearly didn't pay the $75 fee, would their car be extinguished?

_________________