The Glade 4.0

Not really. No one has argued that it's a "one exception one time and the whole thing goes to ****" matter; it's obviously going to happen progressively over time. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Asking for an exception one time doesn't amek you a system-milking douchebag, its avoiding payment in the future and then repeating the request that does it, and getting away with it more than once is a much stronger encouragement to others to do the same.

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

From my understanding, there is a limit of $500 on charging people and by Federal law you cannot compel them to pay. The $500 part is heavily in question though.

I also see that there are 8 cities in that county and only 3 use the subscription model. I have read elsewhere (secondary sources only, mind you) that the other 5 charge $500 for fighting a fire, but are having major financial difficulties this way because of A) the low number of fires to begin with, in the low twenties per department per year outside the city B) the fact that people often do not pay and cannot be compelled and C)the resulting inconsistency of revenue.

Systemic collapse can take a long time to happen.

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

That's much better.

Now, like you said, we disagree. I do not see any real likelyhood of any of these scenarios. Yes, they could happen, but they're largely a result of him trying to fight the fire himself and not calling the fire department. Once he goes to call the fire department, he's clearly not fighting the fire anymore. Not only that, but if any of those things had happened to him, who would have called the fire department? If someone else, presumeably they would state that he was trapped and the fire department would then come because now life IS in danger.

I don't see that the mere possibility that danger to life COUL come to pass means that the fire department is obligated to act as if it already exists. Like I said, those things could have happened just from him burning trash in the first place and I see no reason they should come out and wait around in case of emergency any time anyone has a fire.

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

To use an extreme example, by that standard if someone points a gun at a cop, the cop is not in real danger. Just the possibility that the person COULD pull the trigger does not mean that he will.

It seems to me that your standard of what constitutes an emergency means that the guy must already be dead, injured, or seconds away from one or the other. If he waits till he's trapped by a wall of flame to call, or the wall has fallen on him, the response time alone means he's dead. Now, if that's the standard you use to define an emergency, that's fine, but waiting till things get to that point for the F.D. to decide he's actually in danger means a lot more dead citizens out there.

Evidence of it in this specific example, no. However, as a systemic problem, we have amble evidence that this is exactly what will happen, and has happened. I need say nothing more than the health care system of MA as a prime example. Of course, you also now have the opinion of a federal judge in ruling that it is constitutional for Congress to force people to buy a product, out of concern for exactly this issue.


I don't believe this can be done.

If Bobby stops paying his taxes and there are no repercussions guess what, I'm not paying them either. How's that?

_________________

I don't see how it would not be possible for the city to present him with a bill detailing the actual cost of putting out the fire, and suing him if he refuses to pay. I imagine it would be an open and shut case. But whether that could specifically be done or it has to be handled differently, no one is arguing that he should get the service for free, at least as far as I can tell.

Sue him for what? Providing a service with no written agreement as to the method or nature of payment? That won't hold up.

And in the case where something is burning and the FD comes out to extinguish the fire, but the owner didn't contact the FD, nor want the fire put out? Does he have to pay for this service he didn't request nor want?

Actually, I think the phone records of the 911 call, demonstrating that he did call and ask for the services, would suffice. Unless simple logic no longer has a place in the thinking of the judge.

You would think so, but that isn't the case. Besides, it still doesn't answer the question of when it isn't the owner that calls.

Here's an idea.

I'm going to Taco Bell for lunch, and will bring back an arbitrarily large amount of food. Anyone who pays me $5 prior to my getting in the car to drive over to Taco Bell can eat as much as they want when I get back. I'm going to get lunch. Give me $5, tell me what you want, and you can get your eat on.

Screeling opts not to pay. Maybe he doesn't think $5 for all-you-can-eat Taco Bell is a good deal. Maybe he just doesn't like Taco Bell. It's his money, and his stomach. Am I responsible for him starving to death an hour after lunch?

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I don't know, but that still doesn't change anything, imo. I still make the argument on the human decency, compassion side. Sometimes, people have to suck it up and do the right thing, even for people who seemingly don't deserve it. And sometimes that comes at a cost that the compassionate have to carry. Call it karma, or God being fair or whatever you choose, but I believe there's a benefit that outweighs, in the long haul, the initial cost of doing the compassionate, decent thing.

Even the mayor of South Fulton is a human being. One would hope a human being capable of feeling compassion and decency.

Seems folks are arguing that anyone in the entire world that starves is hungry is the fault of grocery stores and restaurants, even if they have money and choose to not pay.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

That's not a good example at all, because you are talking about the actions of a person, who understands that pointing a gun at someone is a threat. Fire does not have any cognitive process. A better (but still weak) example would be simply having a gun in the presence of the cop. The cop is in more danger than if you don't have the gun, but merely posessing it does not give him justification to shoot you if you are not threatening anyone else with it.



I don't see that it results in a lot more dead citizens since most citizens will be either paying taxes or paying the service fee, or will be in a place where they can pay after the fact, such as the areas of that county that 5 other cities cover. No one is arguing that fire departments should not come save property for people who are paying taxes for that service, or who do in fact pay their fees, or live somewhere that standing procedure is to bill afterwards.

The other problem is that as you acknowledge, firefighting is dangerous. Moreover these firefighters are, like 75% of firefighters in this country, volunteers. Why should they risk their lives and safety, or even their equipment, fighting a fire for a man who does not consider their traning and equipment important enough to pay a nominal fee to support, when it is only his property in danger?

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

I know very few community food banks that do means testing. They help those who come, and rely upon the compassion of people to make donations. In my experience, nobody ask why the needy have fallen on hard times, or refused to help them because they've made bad choices that led them to be in this predicament. They help, out of simple human decency and compassion.

Like it or not, at that moment the Cranick family was in need. If your distaste for how he came to be in that situation is overwhelming any thought of human decency or compassion to the point that you'd refuse to help, that's on your conscience.

Such typical emotional garbage. Not all people help because of simple human decency and compassion. Some people do, but some people do it for other reasons. In the end, it's the lack of an obligation, or an expectation, that makes the act as special as it is. What you're advocating is an entitlement to other's time and energy.

The Cranick family had an expectation. They felt entitled to the services of the fire department, even though it was clear this wasn't going to happen. I have no compassion for people like that. I would have a lot more compassion for people who paid the $75 and their house burned down anyway. That's just hard luck. It's the same as a homeless person. I have compassion for the guy who is mentally ill and has no chance to get a job because of his condition. I have no sympathy for the guy who chooses to booze up instead of putting his resources to better use. In other words, when you put yourself in the bad situation, I lose some sympathy for you. If you take responsibility and do your hardest work to try to get out of it, I gain sympathy back. But when you whine that you were entitled to the help, I will not help you at all. I much prefer to help the guy who owns up to his mistake and tries his hardest to rectify it or the guy who falls on hard times due to sheer luck.

So government services are really charities? Interesting contention.

_________________

For starters, it invalidates the argument that the FD can just recoup its costs after the fact as a reason why the FD should have put out the fire.


Once, sure. Repeating the same mistake and expecting help for it. No. At that point, my "compassion" ceases to extend to this person and is reserved for people that put forth the effort, or correct the mistake that got them into the situation, in the hope that not being an enabler for such stupidity saves others from having to deal with this individual.


Its probably compassion that was behind the City offering the service to begin with, considering what a cheap deal it is for the residence of an area that can't afford a FD of their own, so would otherwise be without. The compassion that had the city try to meet the residence of this area half way.

But, to follow up on the example of the food bank... more of them are starting programs that require assistance to participate, such as doing volunteer hours at the store, etc in exchange for receiving goods. Do you have a problem with this program? Do you have a problem with the food bank turning away a repeat offender that doesn't nothing to help, freeing up resources for others in need who are willing to make that committment?

He decided that his property wasn't worth the pittance it would have cost him to secure an agreement with the fire district for protection.

Now, you impugn those that agree with him that his property wasn't worth the effort to protect. My distaste is for your assumptions, frankly.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I don't particularly like that idea, it seems to be contrary to what a food bank should be about. It seems callous to have a purpose of helping people in need, but then turning away folks because they don't choose to live the way you want them to. If you want to do that, close the place and let someone else do the work. Or better yet, just decide to help people. Just my opinion.

I'd be less likely to donate to such a food bank, tbh, and I'd look for a different place for my donations to go.

To each their own. I'd prefer this kind of charity as it is more akin to teaching to fish, than handing out fish.

But, my personal ethic is to help people out of a bad situation, not give them the means to stay there.

This does not really matter. I have made the point that, in my opinion, people who would watch a man's house burn down because he did not pay $75 to the fund are lacking in compassion and simple human decency. People here have spent pages arguing that my opinion is wrong, but the arguments put forth are totally unpersuasive. I hold to my opinion, and the amount of distaste you have for my opinion is irrelevant.

Interesting... have you contacted Gene Cranick and offered to give him money?

If you have money and don't offer to donate, are you as culpable as the firefighters who watched him lose his property?

Seems time for you to put your money where your mouth is.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Absolutely, but in my opinion there is a time and a place for such teaching, and the food bank is not it. If you want to refer people to such places as you are distributing food, I'd call that a great idea.

Why exactly do you view asking that those receiving assistance do something to help still more people to receive assistance as not being what a food bank "should be" about? A food bank should be about helping people have food, and therefore if they get help from those that receive food, that should facilitate them giving food to yet more people. Also, how is that turning people away because they "don't live the way you want them to"?

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