Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 188

Thread: Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    FD are first responders. They're also first line defense for keeping fires from spreading. That's why they fight forest fires with no people in the woods, and fight abandoned building fires, so they do NOT spread to where people are living. The FD is often also the EMS and controls ambulance services. There's more to fire fighting than just "material goods" that catch on fire.

    The FD's job isn't to carry around a Santy Clause list of who's been naughty or nice, who's paid the "subscription" or not, or who's delinquent or current on their taxes. They're also not supposed to check a 911 caller who's car is on fire, to see if they live in the county (and contributed to the FD in taxes) before they respond. Those budget concerns should never be on a first responder's mind, but left to administrators afterward.


    edit: and I've never said that "everything should be provided for free", just that in emergency situations the last thing providers should be focusing on is who has paid what.
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    So what? It's not their job to "research" who's paid what; they're not accountants or bill collectors. For all they knew, they were renters and the landlord didn't pay the "subscription". Or they paid but it didn't show up on their "roster".

    They're connected to the public 911 emergency response system. They used public funds for their equipment and training. They're first-responders. People are injured or killed all the time, trying to put out their own fires, breathing toxic fumes, trying to do what professional fire fighters are trained to do.
    Your anger should not be at the FD, but at the spineless politicians who set up this system. I can smell it a mile away: pols not wanting to take responsibility for raising taxes. I have no idea what the party affiliation was, but it was a governance fail. I hope recognition of this fail is reflected in the next election.

    As for the guy who lost his home, he really is an ass. As OG said, he tried to game the system, knowing full well that he was riding on the backs of others. Essentially stealing from them. Just because the system is bad doesn't excuse gaming it like a selfish rat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I wonder how all those people in here arguing like OG would have reacted if someone had died in the fire due to the inactivity of the fire department.
    Knowing firefighters a bit, I'd be surprised if they were inactive in the face of a risk to life and limb. They are generally people who sacrifice a lot for others. I feel confident in surmising that they assessed human risk before refusing to fight the fire.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This is why I brought up material goods being different than humans. While we don't have the case here, I'm unaware of when the fire department would be restricted from interviening when a life is one the line.
    What if they thought it was empty, and they let it burn? And only then found out there was someone in there.

    And a burning house isn't just a house on fire, but it also threatens houses around them. If the fire had been put out more quickly the neighbour would not have had fire damage on his house. Which is why I think this opt-in for fire protection is ridiculous.

    For the rest I mostly agree with what ][ear posted above.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This is why I brought up material goods being different than humans. While we don't have the case here, I'm unaware of when the fire department would be restricted from interviening when a life is one the line.
    They put the homeowner's "life on the line" the moment they refused to help, and people were trying to put it out with garden hoses. And the fire spread. Maybe, according to your theory, the guy should have run into the house with a fire extinguisher, so the fire fighters could intervene and save a life. Wherever there's fire, there's a risk to surrounding human life, because fire tends to spread.

    There are a lot of protections renters lose if their landlord doesn't keep on the bills. Much like the sorrow I feel for the current renters being turned homeless because the landlord didn't pay rent, I would feel for the renters if they were unaware of the landload not paying for this service. They both result in homelessness (and sometimes even the loss of personal possessions), but I suspect that in your example the renters would have legal recourse if nonpayment was not conveyed by the landlord.
    Fire fighters aren't supposed to act as lawyers, either. But look what the chief (or whichever goof gave the orders) has done.....probably cost all the tax payers in order to pay for future litigation. All for $75.



    edit to Tear: I'm challenging the posters saying this guy "deserved what he got". And the fire fighters at the scene who sort of shrugged and said, "That's the way the cookie crumbles" instead of being angry at their fire chief, supervisors, and administrators who set up such a shitty system. It's too bad it took something like this to bring out the residents and tax payers, to get angry at their shitty system.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    All for $75.
    Do we know that or could it be 10 years of $75/year?
    Last edited by Being; 10-05-2010 at 11:59 PM.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    What if they thought it was empty, and they let it burn? And only then found out there was someone in there.

    And a burning house isn't just a house on fire, but it also threatens houses around them. If the fire had been put out more quickly the neighbour would not have had fire damage on his house. Which is why I think this opt-in for fire protection is ridiculous.
    This is a threat for any house fire. One of the first questions the 911 operators ask in the case of a fire is if the caller knows if the house is empty. That question helps determine the priority of the response, the type of response, and who will respond. Firefighters don't enter a fire unless its determined to necessary to save someone's life, and they don't enter for pets either.

    I do have a problem with the neighbors' roof catching fire. As to how close the homes where, how bad the fire was, and how likely the home would have caught even with a response. We lost of post office downtown because the apartments across the street burned down. The heat alone caught the roof the post office on fire. The firefighters were already on the scene, and how they reacted to the spread, or tried to prepare for it, is important, but unreported.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    They put the homeowner's "life on the line" the moment they refused to help
    Again, another problem a regular firefighting response faces. Home owners commonly do stupid things in this scenario. I also question the garden hose claim. A raging house fire is simply to hot to get anywhere near with a hose, and the quoted article doesn't mention anything about neighbors pitching in.

    With the type of shit firefighters put up with, funding being a major one, I highly doubt any of them were blaming their superiors for this moronic home owner not paying for their services.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Fire fighters aren't supposed to act as lawyers, either. But look what the chief (or whichever goof gave the orders) has done.....probably cost all the tax payers in order to pay for future litigation. All for $75.
    The only person you have any proof of making the call to not put out the fire was the homeowner when he decided to not pay for the service. This bullshit of blaming everyone from the firefighters to the supervisors because they aren't in another profession is stupid, because you have no fucking clue who made the decision.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-06-2010 at 12:13 AM.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    They put the homeowner's "life on the line" the moment they refused to help, and people were trying to put it out with garden hoses. And the fire spread. Maybe, according to your theory, the guy should have run into the house with a fire extinguisher, so the fire fighters could intervene and save a life. Wherever there's fire, there's a risk to surrounding human life, because fire tends to spread.
    As far as I can tell, the FD hopped on it the second there was risk. Let's not assume the worst.
    Fire fighters aren't supposed to act as lawyers, either. But look what the chief (or whichever goof gave the orders) has done.....probably cost all the tax payers in order to pay for future litigation.
    I assume they simply acted on standing orders. Maybe even explicit orders at the time.

    And whomever made the decision was forced to do so by the politicians. Fact is, every call costs a lot of money, and a strapped department with failing equipment needs to make decisions like this. You'd prefer that they'd let people game them, then not be able to respond to a call where some honest soul who didn't try to game the system needed help? That would be a bigger tragedy. And I do think that's what we're talking here. Emergency services often get put into a situation like this by dumbass politicians. I reluctantly support both the FD and whomever made this decision.

    All for $75.
    See below. Almost certainly not. Average over 10 or 20 years, and the many people who game the system like this. This was going to happen to one household, but that household represents many in the same category. Over a decade, those donkeys cost the departments hundreds of thousands, would be my guess.

    edit to Tear: I'm challenging the posters saying this guy "deserved what he got". And the fire fighters at the scene who sort of shrugged and said, "That's the way the cookie crumbles" instead of being angry at their fire chief, supervisors, and administrators who set up such a shitty system. It's too bad it took something like this to bring out the residents and tax payers, to get angry at their shitty system.
    Deserved? I doubt they are bad people. But they are clueless people, and not willing to pull their weight (probably). This is not how civil societies work. If the pols had spines, they would have set the system up so it could not happen like this. If the family was too poor, well, our taxation system is graduated for exactly that reason, isn't it? And I'm quite confident that the firefighters are not sanguine about it. But I'll bet they're also pretty angry. How many pay cuts and layoffs do you think the department has had? They can sit there and say "because of assholes like this, we have been suffering from pay cuts, laid off colleagues, and breaking down equipment." They'd be better off blaming the pols, but people don't do that, your response as case in point. Don't practice emotionalist politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Do we know that of could it be 10 years of $75/year?
    Exactly. And maybe hundreds of people sponging the same way. Terrible that the local government set it up this way that a) some assholes could try to game the system, and b) that the poor are left vulnerable this way.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Do we know that or could it be 10 years of $75/year?
    Doesn't matter. Do we know if the guy was an illegal immigrant, a tax evader, a meth cooker? Doesn't matter. If a FD is connected to 911, they're part of the public emergency response system. If it's "out of their jurisdiction" they don't have to respond, but as first responders they probably will. For the most part, fire fighters want to help. Then they should act like first responders. Not accountants, bill collectors, insurance adjudicators, or lawyers.

    It's a whole separate argument about who set up their "voluntary" payment system of what's basically a tax, or who drew the jurisdiction lines.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Doesn't matter. Do we know if the guy was an illegal immigrant, a tax evader, a meth cooker? Doesn't matter. If a FD is connected to 911, they're part of the public emergency response system. If it's "out of their jurisdiction" they don't have to respond, but as first responders they probably will. For the most part, fire fighters want to help. Then they should act like first responders. Not accountants, bill collectors, insurance adjudicators, or lawyers.

    It's a whole separate argument about who set up their "voluntary" payment system of what's basically a tax, or who drew the jurisdiction lines.
    No, that's your assumption because that is how it is usually done in the US. You are offended because this sacred cow was compromised. I agree. But some bright boys and girls, elected by voters, did it differently here. Different assumptions. I'll just argue that you're pointing the finger in the wrong place. It's easy to scratch the surface and blame the FD, or the chief. Let's dig a little deeper to what we know must have gone down here politically.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    [snip]The only person you have any proof of making the call to not put out the fire was the homeowner when he decided to not pay for the service. This bullshit of blaming everyone from the firefighters to the supervisors because they aren't in another profession is stupid, because you have no fucking clue who made the decision.
    Actually, I'm trying to defend fire fighters as first responders, and professional fire fighters. Not having to juggle other decisions or roles regarding payment. I'm not even playing your blame game. You're the one who said the guy got what he deserved. That's the bullshit here.

    I just watched the man do an interview on tv. He said he simply forgot to pay the $75 "bill", but his other taxes are up to date, and those things helped pay for the fire trucks, etc. He also said some of the fire fighters were really upset at being told not to intervene, and cried about it after they went home.

    With any system there are going to be free-loaders, or those trying to "game the system". Fire fighters shouldn't have to be in the business of figuring that out.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    As far as I can tell, the FD hopped on it the second there was risk. Let's not assume the worst.

    I assume they simply acted on standing orders. Maybe even explicit orders at the time.

    And whomever made the decision was forced to do so by the politicians. Fact is, every call costs a lot of money, and a strapped department with failing equipment needs to make decisions like this. You'd prefer that they'd let people game them, then not be able to respond to a call where some honest soul who didn't try to game the system needed help? That would be a bigger tragedy. And I do think that's what we're talking here. Emergency services often get put into a situation like this by dumbass politicians. I reluctantly support both the FD and whomever made this decision.
    You're assuming the worst---that he's gaming the system. There are also many false alarms, or responses to tripped security systems. All those things add up in costs, but it's not the fire fighters job to keep track of that, and it shouldn't be! For all we know, the fire chief IS the elected official, and he's the one who gave the orders.

    See below. Almost certainly not. Average over 10 or 20 years, and the many people who game the system like this. This was going to happen to one household, but that household represents many in the same category. Over a decade, those donkeys cost the departments hundreds of thousands, would be my guess.
    Who's assuming the worst again? Rail about freeloaders or tax cheats all you want, but first responders shouldn't have to mess with that. Whether it's your fire fighters or your ER physicians. There are other people to deal with that.....

    Deserved? I doubt they are bad people. But they are clueless people, and not willing to pull their weight (probably). This is not how civil societies work. If the pols had spines, they would have set the system up so it could not happen like this. If the family was too poor, well, our taxation system is graduated for exactly that reason, isn't it? And I'm quite confident that the firefighters are not sanguine about it. But I'll bet they're also pretty angry. How many pay cuts and layoffs do you think the department has had? They can sit there and say "because of assholes like this, we have been suffering from pay cuts, laid off colleagues, and breaking down equipment." They'd be better off blaming the pols, but people don't do that, your response as case in point. Don't practice emotionalist politics.
    Exactly. And maybe hundreds of people sponging the same way. Terrible that the local government set it up this way that a) some assholes could try to game the system, and b) that the poor are left vulnerable this way.
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    No, that's your assumption because that is how it is usually done in the US. You are offended because this sacred cow was compromised. I agree. But some bright boys and girls, elected by voters, did it differently here. Different assumptions. I'll just argue that you're pointing the finger in the wrong place. It's easy to scratch the surface and blame the FD, or the chief. Let's dig a little deeper to what we know must have gone down here politically.
    Now who's being emotional, pointing fingers in the wrong place, and making assumptions?

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    No, that is not clear. Not from the article and not from the story I heard on the radio. Not sure what your point is with this comment, but, as an aside, Detroit also has an income tax levied against residents and against anyone that works with in city limits. How fucked up is that?

    I don't know what the best way to tax is.... But I think in this case, the refusal to put out this guy's fire comes from more than just a callous firehouse. There's a bug up someone's ass about taxes and fees, who pays and who's refusing to pay, so much so that this fire department did what we all here would ordinarily think was unthinkable. . . . .
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    If only we had come up with some way to pay for these things ahead of time, and on a yearly basis, with costs that reflected how much property you needed protected, or how valuable that property was. Oh well, maybe somebody will think of something in the future.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Eh? If there's 100 people there you can tax 100 people. I don't get what you're saying here. If the community is too small to justify its own fire department (I can imagine that would be too expensive), you can 'merge' your fire county with the neighbours, like they did here. And pay for it with your taxes. Over here police departments can span more than one county, AFAIK, that doesn't seem to give much problems.
    Or property taxes, since it is linked to protecting your property that would make sense
    Income and sales taxes could easily support a fire department, it just takes budgeting. It doesn't have to do with how one taxes something, it has to do with how one organizes a fire service.

    When a county has no basic services like fire departments, it seems reasonable for the state to organize these systems in a way where there is some fire coverage of the whole state. Even funding a volunteer department could have saved this house; lots of the US survives with volunteer fire departments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I don't understand how you can be against this but FOR the private healthcare system of America.

    At least Lewkowski is consistent.
    Because firefighting is a basic service that doesn't require tons of research, innovation and education. As I mentioned before, large chunks of Amerika rely on volunteer fire services that do just fine. I've never said there should be no government, just small government.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Income and sales taxes could easily support a fire department, it just takes budgeting. It doesn't have to do with how one taxes something, it has to do with how one organizes a fire service.
    Why should workers and consumers pay for protecting the property of the establishments that make money off of them? Property tax is more equitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    When a county has no basic services like fire departments, it seems reasonable for the state to organize these systems in a way where there is some fire coverage of the whole state. Even funding a volunteer department could have saved this house; lots of the US survives with volunteer fire departments.



    Because firefighting is a basic service that doesn't require tons of research, innovation and education. As I mentioned before, large chunks of Amerika rely on volunteer fire services that do just fine. I've never said there should be no government, just small government.
    Socialist?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Why should workers and consumers pay for protecting the property of the establishments that make money off of them? Property tax is more equitable.
    I don't follow what you're trying to say.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I don't follow what you're trying to say.
    Income tax and sales tax to provide fire protection for property that you don't own? Really? Property tax is more appropriate.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  15. #75
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Of course it can be supported by income or sales tax, if you raise the rates, money is money after all. but what about, say a place with a lot of retired people with no income? Anyway, this is clearly a service linked to your property so it makes sense to link it to property.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #76
    Retired people usually have income...but rarely do they live entirely surrounded by people with no income.

  17. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    I can't really say I feel too sorry for this home-owner. He knew there was the charge but he took the bet not to pay it. It's a good example though of what you get if the small government crowd really gets its way all the way.
    Congratulations America

  18. #78
    As I said, I don't think many people have this in mind when they think of small government. This is more like "no government".

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I can't really say I feel too sorry for this home-owner. He knew there was the charge but he took the bet not to pay it. It's a good example though of what you get if the small government crowd really gets its way all the way.
    I don't know how the idea has so far in this forum, but the small government crowd != anarcho-capitalists. Those guys are actually just a small fringe group with very little power or influence.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Smoking kills. (This guy's 30 years old.... )
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I know.

    I think they always hope it will be forgotten, or overlooked.
    Those most opposed to socialism can't answer it. They just know its something they're supposed to hate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Because you're not? Because there are hardly any real socialists in America any more? Because the rightist extremists won the semantics battle, effectively making "socialist" or "liberal" equivalent to "nazi," even when they are perfectly valid and plausible balancing principles to libertarianism and laissez faire economics.
    Depends on if you're talking socialism light (as in many European countries) or socialism heavy, like what the Soviet Union pretended to be implementing. I think you're talking light, right?

    Edit: only certain people should be allowed to smoke a pipe, and this guy is one of them. My freshman year roommate, on the other hand, was not.
    College? What was he burning in it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Because of Dread's use of the term as a slur rather than a legitimate observation.



    Wrong!
    I hate you now.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  22. #82
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Because firefighting is a basic service that doesn't require tons of research, innovation and education. As I mentioned before, large chunks of Amerika rely on volunteer fire services that do just fine. I've never said there should be no government, just small government.
    If you don't see the parallels then you're closing your eyes willfully to reality. Both times it's a "Don't pay for the service in advance? Don't get access to the service or pay through the nose!" scheme.

    While that may work for things like going to the movies, losing your home due to a non-paid $75 bill, that's massively out of proportion. Does the US legal system work that way too? Steal a chocolate bar and be sentenced to 25 years of slave labour? Punch a guy in the face and you're sentenced with the death penalty?

    The RIGHT way would have been: Put the fire out and then demand the missing money plus a sizable non-payment fee. Honestly, the US sound like medieval Europe a bit more every day. Punishment has to fit the crime, guys. Once again, this is way out of proportion.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  23. #83
    There is no punishment here. This was a decision made by the home owner to not enter a service contract with the fire department in the city that was ~30 miles away. Much like I wouldn't have much ground to stand on if I went after an insurance company for compensation because I was robbed, and only wanted to pay that month's worth of renters' insurance.

    I know life saving services have some protections when dealing with payments after the fact, one problem with our health system; but I wonder how billing would hold up in court for services like this. Any agreement the owner would have made on the spot could be ruled invalid because it was made under an obvious case of distress.

  24. #84
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    It's not compensation. Yeees, and of course the court would've rendered the bill invalid, riiiight.

    Because when you're on an operating table the agreement to cover the medical costs is also made under duress (if you're even conscious at that point!). Surely any court will throw a medical bill forged under those circumstances right out of the window!

    Not? Bummer.

    In short: Laughable argument.

    And it's not punishment? By what bizarre logic did you arrive at that particular conclusion? Losing your home due to non-payment of a comparatively small bill? If that isn't punishment, then I don't know how you define that term. I mean, the frickin' fire brigade STOOD NEAR THE HOUSE AND LET IT BURN DOWN!

    Some people are definitely stuck in the Dark Ages here, guys. I mean, what's next? People with the Bubonic Plague don't get treated if they don't have insurance, despite the fact that this particular variant of the plague is highly infectious? There's a reason why the Fire Department, the Police and other services are public services - unchecked fires are a bit bad for the neighbourhood.
    If I was the neighbour whose house caught fire due to the inaction of those particular asshats, I'd sue the living shit out of them for not doing their job!
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Because when you're on an operating table the agreement to cover the medical costs is also made under duress (if you're even conscious at that point!). Surely any court will throw a medical bill forged under those circumstances right out of the window!
    Selective reading, and so early on

  26. #86
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Selective reading, and so early on
    Being unable to think and so early on. This "oh, but the courts!" argument has to be the most idiotic strawman I've heard all year.

    And if it were actually true, well, then we know which country wins the "Reverting to the Bronze Age" award, don't we?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  27. #87
    You're starting to understand the US court system, and you did it while almost being civil!

  28. #88
    Just Floatin... termite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Land of Milk & Honey
    Posts
    1,213
    Real firefighters would still put out the fucking fire - perhaps its something like the difference between a rent-a-cop security guard and a real cop, clearly not real firefighters but certainly rent-a-firefighter would be an apt coloquialism. After all, they only put out fires if you pay whereas a cop will still be duty bound to serve & protect (and beat you senseless if you're some kind of minority). I wonder if these rent-a-firemen have considered resorting to beating you senseless for payment - or perhaps they haven't slipped that far down the protection racket slippery slope just yet.

    For the effort it would have taken expert firemen to put out the fire it would have been far more beneficial to society than simply watching it burn and have yet another person end up destitute and quite likely to become a far greater burden to society than the loss of the unpaid $75.

    Sometimes a simple cost/benefit analysis destroys the ideal behind a stupid fucking law.
    Such is Life...

  29. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I don't know how the idea has so far in this forum, but the small government crowd != anarcho-capitalists. Those guys are actually just a small fringe group with very little power or influence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    As I said, I don't think many people have this in mind when they think of small government. This is more like "no government".
    Well, maybe it isn't but it is what they should have in their mind. Especially since they live in a country where the present government can't provide its services out of revenues.
    Quote Originally Posted by termite View Post
    Real firefighters would still put out the fucking fire - perhaps its something like the difference between a rent-a-cop security guard and a real cop, clearly not real firefighters but certainly rent-a-firefighter would be an apt coloquialism. After all, they only put out fires if you pay whereas a cop will still be duty bound to serve & protect (and beat you senseless if you're some kind of minority). I wonder if these rent-a-firemen have considered resorting to beating you senseless for payment - or perhaps they haven't slipped that far down the protection racket slippery slope just yet.

    For the effort it would have taken expert firemen to put out the fire it would have been far more beneficial to society than simply watching it burn and have yet another person end up destitute and quite likely to become a far greater burden to society than the loss of the unpaid $75.

    Sometimes a simple cost/benefit analysis destroys the ideal behind a stupid fucking law.
    Yeah, and maybe all the other deadbeats in the area will rethink the wisdom of not paying for the firetruck and firefighters.
    Congratulations America

  30. #90
    One man's rant:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •