Bing, where was this person in dire distress you’re talking about. It’s cool that you started your arguement on a lie and then based the entire thing off that lie, even the closing.
This line of thinking is what has brought us to the levels of economic recession that we are seeing. Continually bailing out the “less fortunate”.
It’s really quite simple.
“Would you like fire protection this year for $75 dollars?”
“No thanks.”
“OK you don’t have fire protection.”
How the hell do you make more out of that arrangement. Didn’t you cover logic in high school math?
A implies B
If not A
Then not B
Despite growing up with losers getting trophies, in the real world entitlement is not in that equation.
Here’s the underlying reason: It doesn’t cost $75 dollars to put out a fire. It costs $75 dollars from EVERYONE to put out one or two fires that year. If you protect people who didn’t buy protection, pretty soon everyone knows that they’ll be protected anyway and stops paying and then the fire department has no funds and doesn’t exist and nobody has protection. If you exist to protect the public you have an obligation to hold to the rules to maintain your existence. Doing the right thing is not doing what feels good in the short run and screws everyone in the long run.
how socialist of me eh?
Mike, the exact opposite is true. anyways… carry on
Fry, taxes pay for essential services. you guys are talking about how the taxes should be raised by blending in the $75 fee… but that doesnt mean you don’t put the fire out.
All legal issues aside, sitting back and watching someone’s home burn while their dogs are inside of it is completely savage. You would think that in a “Christian nation” people would show a little more compassion.
you spent too much time in Canada Paulo… THEY DIDNT PAY $75… FUCK THEIR DOGS!!!
I also see it just like insurance. They could have just given him a bill for a few thousand though. But I guess that probably wouldn’t have gotten paid. $75/yr is completely reasonable for fire service if you own a home.
If they put the fire out, it sets the precedent that you don’t have to pay and you still get your fire put out.
This is as liberal as it gets. Complete freedom to chose what you want from your government. Wouldn’t it be awesome to pay for exactly what you wanted, and know exactly what it is costing you. Not to mention the accountability of seeing specific taxes rise.
Straight matter of philosophy here, like I said. Liberals believe people are innately good and will do the right thing if they’re given two equal choices, which was John Locke. Conservatives believe people are innately evil and will do as much wrong as they think they can get away with, which was Thomas Hobbes. As such, one side believes that it was an honest mistake and since they were on the scene with fire trucks, they should be given the benefit of the doubt on a one-time basis. The other side thinks they’re stupid, poor manipulators that are scamming the system and expecting something for nothing and they need to be made an example of.
i vote republican but still think they should have been given a chance
Jesus would have put out that fire.
LOL
I really question you guys that think it is ok to just watch a house burn down. Spin it all you want but that is just wrong.
The only thing that makes me wonder is if the town sends out like a 2nd notice to those houses that hadn’t paid.
Liberals believe freedom can exist because people are decent enough for it to happen safely. But if you choose against the safety of society, so be it. If you don’t put collision insurance on a $10k car you paid cash for, you save money, but if you wreck it you are out $10k if it was your fault. There is always a choice, there is always a risk. That guy chose to not pay before they chose to not put his fire out. He was simply existing in a system with the freedom of choice and suffered negative consequences. The whole point of government is working together to create a better life. What is the point of a system if the rules are meaningless. The rules should be fair. This was in no way unfair.
I agree, it was ridiculous not to put the fire out when they were there. But that is freedom. This is the only way government could ever possibly be fair. Your actions dictate consequences. Everything should be equal and percentage based, the cost of fire coverage should be based on an assessment of the house because the fee could become arbitrary and ridiculous. There should not be higher tax rates for the wealthy, they will already be contributing more because they make more. Same percentage for everyone.
People should get a choice and have to deal with the consequences. I would love to choose not to contribute to social security, and if I end up poor when I am old that is my fault. We still have poverty anyway.
How about watching almost $700 billion a year spent on a military budget so we can maintain our standard or living? I forgot, that money is spent on defense, defending our standard of living. Maybe the problem is we’re too busy watching American Idol.
I don’t even want to read this whole thread because I’m already disgusted with the people who think it’s ok that they let the house burn down. I think that’s fucked. Shit happens, people make mistakes and forget to mail out bills in a timely fashion. Should a person lose their 3 dogs and all of ther belongings for it? NO. The man offered to pay on the spot. That should have been good enough for them to put the fucking fire out.
Not everything has to be done by the book. The firefighters were at the scene. They should have done something to help. Fuck $75.
beeshes nd to learn to give good beejd
Then again, the town could institute a policy - didn’t pay the $75? Then pay the actual costs of answering the fire when called - which would be probably closer to $7500…
Dude, isn’t it clearly stated that the home owner’s paid the tax in previous years but ‘forgot’ not ‘decided not’ to pay the tax in the most recent year.
Anyways, with your auto insurance example, it is illegal to drive a car on the road without insurance… it’s a law that is meant to protect from the societal costs not of you wrecking your $10k car that you paid cash for but the untold dollars to repair the life of someone you hurt with that $10k car that you likely cannot afford to pay for. Kind of like if this fire hit the neighbours house or damaged city property (electrical systems, hydro etc.)
Making fire-protection optional is the first problem… obeying the system in light of dangerous policy is the second problem. The third problem will be legal-protection taxes… IE. you dont pay your $75 a year then the police don’t have to enforce crimes against you.
People should not have a choice on decisions they cannot handle the consequences of… it should be mandatory.