The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
No Pay? No Play!
Here's another story of a homeowner who didn't pay the subscription fee for fire protection, believing that, if he had a fire, the fire department would come anyway.
He was wrong.
This follows the same line of thinking of districts who shut down their departments, believing that, if they needed fire protection, they could rely on mutual aid.
What is wrong with that thinking?
Read the story from Tennessee: http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-bur...
TCSS.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alex Guzzetta on
-
Dude, seriously what is your obsession with Libertarian-bashing? Did a libertarian beat you up and steal your lunch money when you were in grade school or something? I mean, they only pull in at most .4% of the vote in general elections...where are all these evil libertarians in TN politics enacting these cruel cruel policies of individual responsibility? Actually if you look at a breakdown of TN government you find that it is split almost down the middle republican/democrat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Tennessee
Bottom-line is that no political party taken to the extreme is ever good. Why dont you jump back up on your soapbox and start denouncing the liberal extremists for bankrupting the government with their hippy-love-bs welfare policies. Or start denouncing the republican extremists for theocratic paternalism and corporatism? Or the extreme socialists who feel that a burger flipper should be paid the same as a neurosurgeon?
Your definition of a libertarian is taken to such an extreme within the party its like me judging every republican's political stance off of Glen Beck or Strom Thurmond, and every democrat off the likes of Al Frankin, Al Sharpton or Bill Maher.
Most real-world libertarians are much more centrist, realizing there are certain services that need to be socialized in order for society to exist (ie, fire protection). I'm a centrist libertarian and if you ask me, fire service should be included in property taxes (which any level-headed libertarian would tell you still need to exist to provide necessary services, just at much lower levels). However, the local government in question was structured in such a way that fire service was explicitly stated as "pay to play", the homeowner expressed his RIGHT not to pay for the service and now he has to live with the consequences of his actions. Blame Olbion Cty government for structuring their emergency services in that way to begin with, blame the homeowner for making a bad gamble...but dont blame the FF's... or the libertarians for that matter.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Do we have a made-for-TV or a book deal yet?
I mean, we have upteen discussion threads, blogs and position papers flying off the keyboards.
And surprisingly, the world keeps turning on its axis.
Is it already yesterday's news?
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
Stop the presses, JACK and BEN AGREE! Make that the header.
-
Permalink Reply by Al Black on
-
That is the fact this man did not live in the district. He lived in the county outside of the city limits. The department had an agrement with the county that they would respond to the houses that wanted protection and paid a $75 dollar fee. This home owner had fire insurance but did not pay the fee. It is not a right that you get fire protection.
-
Permalink Reply by James Corgill on
-
Utopia would be nice wouldnt it. We could have the best service in the world without worrying about money.
Reality check: Funding is real. You cant just say that we should be "civilized" and then pull a fire department out of your ass.
Please do us all a favor and shut it.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Fletcher on
-
In my country you pay a fire insurance levy on your house insurance which then goes towards the fire services, the state then pays the rest of the operating costs (We only have 2 fire services that cover the whole state). As a firefighter and crew leader I don't ask to see if the house owner has house insurance, all that is settled after the fire has been extinguished. This particular case appears to be vindictive because if the house owner is to be believed he offered to pay whatever it took to get the fire service to extinguish his fire. The department was there watching the fire and I find it hard to understand how the firefighters could just stand back and watch a house burn when they have the means at hand to help. I for one hope that in my country we don't lose the basic decency to help others in their time of adversity for the sake of a few dollars.
-
Permalink Reply by chris renner on
-
Keep in mind that the call first goes to a dispatcher. Just like fire departments don't get sent to other towns, they are not going to be sent to a home not on the "paid" list, because it falls outside their "district". House that do pay are in their district. To say that it is the firefighters faults is stupid. It is no different than the city council that won't spend enough taxpayer money or raise taxes to keep adequate fire coverage in their city. If a house then burns down, is it the "laid off" firefighters fault that he didn't show up and put out the fire. Or the on duty firefighters fault that he didn't have adequate equipment to do the job. I volunteer my time, but the taxpayers provide my equipment. We do not respond (other than mutual aid) outside the area that our taxpayers define. This evidently is an area that the rural board did not want to raise taxes. Time to elect new officials?
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Bobby,
Apparently, like so many others who have posted on this issue, you didn't stop to learn the facts before you posted.
The homeowner in question was NOT within a "fire protection boundry". He lives in an unincorporated section of Obion County, TN that has NO fire department.
His neighbors contract for fire services with the neighboring City of South Fulton.
They provide fire protection for their paid subscribers OUTSIDE their fire protection boundry (the city limits). It would be immoral for them to provide free fire protection to the homeowner in question while charging his neighbors for the same protection.
As for "someone dying from policies like this"...having a fire department is no guarantee that you won't die in a fire.
-
-
Wrong again, Herb.
The previous fire chief allowed the immoral practice of providing free fire protection for some of the county residents while charging their neighbors for the same fire protection. Ex post facto payment doesn't change the fact that the real-time firefighting was done for free in the past for some and not for others. It's likely why he is the "former" fire chief.
To repeat, the South Fulton Fire Department had no "duty to act" outside their jurisdiction unless it was for a paid subscriber. If they chose to provide protection without the duty to act in the past, that in no way makes them liable for either changing their policy nor for restricting their current services to those to whom they actually do owe a duty to act.
-
-
What do you have against the book, Vic? Could it be that it points out that the origins of the U.S. progressive movement are closely tied to a couple of other former "progressive" movements that are now widely discredited? There are many parallels between those three movements as the well-researched text clearly shows.
I don't have a misguided picture of socialism at all, and I realize that it comes in different shades and flavors. I didn't include your list because they aren't as completely socialist countries as the ones I named...but while we're on the topic, communism is a form of socialism. So was National Socialism...more well known by another name.
Your list...
Australia - here's an example of a socialized emergency services system failure in OZ...The Public Shame of Victoria's Ambulance Service
New Zealand...since they have less population in their country than the population of my state, that one is really applies to oranges. A large portion of their economis based on tourism, which is the very definition of living on other people's money. "The New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015 is an ambitious strategy. It's vision is that in 2015, tourism is valued as the leading contributor to a sustainable New Zealand economy.’
Hmmm, NZ's brand of socialism isn't sustainable without other people's money. Whoda thunk it.?
Japan's economy so ruined by socialism that they call their recent past the Lost Decade..."On it's current trajectory, it (Japan) is less than five years away from hitting the brick wall."
The Netherlands has unsustainable social spending. They've been trying to have local governments find work for the unemployed - unsuccessfully - since at least 2004. Unsustainable social spending will do that to you.
Sweden...unemployment rising and international competitiveness decliningsince the early 1990's, but with the roots of the problem going back decades prior.
"Despite a substantial fall in its unemployment rate from 17.7 % in 2005 to 13.8 % in 2006, Poland still has the most people out of work in the EU, with the lowest employment rate at 54.5 %, well below the EU target of
70 %."
Norway - Their economy is based largely upon gas and oil exports. They're lucky, they don't seem to be running out of other people's money the way the other socialist countries have done or are doing.
I can't find a reference to a country called "etc.". If it was a socialist country, they probably disbanded their unsustainable socialst government.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
You are too...but in a lovable way..LOL
-
-
What is it with you and the phrase logical fallacy? Dude.........take a breath.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
