Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
They Let The House Burn Down They Let The House Burn Down

10-06-2010 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spladle
I think you may be confusing "could" with "should."
It's a hypothetical question being theoretically posed to the family before the fire occurred, I think "could" applies just as well.
10-06-2010 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spladle
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Many people believe that the issue has been settled and that the socialization of fire departments is a legitimate thing. So many, in fact, that fire departments have been socialized all over the country.
argumentum ad populem (appeal to popular opinion fallacy)

I have some regulatory testing Friday so not posting more until then.
10-06-2010 , 01:00 PM
many people underestimate the likelihood of fire, therefore the state, "hired by the people" are capable of providing just the right amount of fire protection makes sense.
10-06-2010 , 01:08 PM
Only Socialists, working with other peoples money, can afford to be so spiteful and hateful as happened in this incident.
10-06-2010 , 01:10 PM
I haven't seen it mentioned ITT but about 3-4 years ago the family had also "forgotten" to pay their fire bill and the firemen showed up and put out a fire for them. Not a ton of sympathy here.

Also for people lambasting the free-market approach here, is there really a huge problem? Some dude made an idiotic decision and now is paying the price. Yeah it sucks and makes an excellent news clip but he knew you were supposed to pay for fire protection and didn't want to shell out a whole $75/yr for this service. That's $6.25/mo

Question:

If a company had responded to the call (not whatever bastardized government sponsored company that is going on), do they put out the fire?

My guess is they take the dude's offer to pay on the spot and put out the fire -- though I have a very pro-market bias here. I would assume they prefer money to no money (after they've showed up), and the lack of media outrage. The media is LOLing about this when a government was in some way responsible, imagine the outrage if the for-profit tyrannical corporation refused to put out a fire at some poor folk's house.

Seems like one could easily say $75/yr and $2000 (or whatever the actual cost is) if your house sets on fire and you need their help. Some local governments are already doing this with ambulance's, etc. (though unfortunately they didn't lower any other taxes, they just tacked this on as a cost).
10-06-2010 , 01:20 PM
Iron doesn't seem to understand that the other people who thought they could free ride probably now signed up for coveragem
10-06-2010 , 01:42 PM
There should be a clause stating that the city will respond to all fires outside city limits, but that all past fees will then be due as well as a huge penalty. Somthing like $7500 (100 years of fire protection service).

To just stand there while a family's entire life is burning in order to make a point is just shameful.

The way this went down, one wonders if there is some personal grudge between the firefighter in charge at the scene and the homeowner.
10-06-2010 , 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonh
Iron doesn't seem to understand that the other people who thought they could free ride probably now signed up for coveragem
Ah, good, making an example out of a family who is now homeless and likely penniless has drummed up a few extra bucks for a fire dept. that must have otherwise been extremely poor and on the brink of collapse due to 'free riders'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yukoncpa
Only Socialists, working with other peoples money, can afford to be so spiteful and hateful as happened in this incident.
A company refused service to an individual who didn't pay money to the company. That's an awful strange definition of socialism right there.
10-06-2010 , 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcbrag
There should be a clause stating that the city will respond to all fires outside city limits, but that all past fees will then be due as well as a huge penalty. Somthing like $7500 (100 years of fire protection service).

To just stand there while a family's entire life is burning in order to make a point is just shameful.

The way this went down, one wonders if there is some personal grudge between the firefighter in charge at the scene and the homeowner.
Is there any indication that they were trying to make a point?
10-06-2010 , 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thutter
OK I have added it to my list: if you are old - they will take away your social security check. if you are poor - they will take away your welfare check. if you are in need of medical help - they will let you die. if your home catches on fire -they will let it burn down.

I am sure there are a few other big ones I am missing.
Unless you are an illegal alien.
10-06-2010 , 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonh
Iron doesn't seem to understand that the other people who thought they could free ride probably now signed up for coveragem
One must be sacrificed for the good of the herd.....it is natures way.
10-06-2010 , 01:48 PM
If the family was black would there be more or less outrage?
10-06-2010 , 01:49 PM
What i dont get, they rung up 911, got through and said where they were. So the FD looks them up on computer, realises they didnt pay their 75 bucks and then refuses to come out. So what happens if someone dies in the fire - either directly or indirectly by trying to fight it, or receive what few possessions they have left or whatever.

Its also worth stating that the guy only went and punched out the fire chief afterwards. I would not have been shocked if someone got shot over a policy like this.

Plus if its true what someone said that they had already funded the equipment through property taxes so all the difference is comes down to gas for the extra mileage, that is pretty ridiculous.
10-06-2010 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
If a family member left inside the burning house was blackened would there be any outrage from ACists?
.


Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
What i dont get, they rung up 911, got through and said where they were. So the FD looks them up on computer, realises they didnt pay their 75 bucks and then refuses to come out. So what happens if someone dies in the fire - either directly or indirectly by trying to fight it, or receive what few possessions they have left or whatever.

Its also worth stating that the guy only went and punched out the fire chief afterwards. I would not have been shocked if someone got shot over a policy like this.

Plus if its true what someone said that they had already funded the equipment through property taxes so all the difference is comes down to gas for the extra mileage, that is pretty ridiculous.
Did those property taxes also pay for all the firefighters' salaries forever? Cuz if not, they probably want to get paid somehow.

This was just a failure of mixing a public good with privatization. Let's look at the story from 2 different points of view:

The fire dept, as a public good, is fully socialized, the money comes directly from peoples' taxes with no need to keep track of extra checks to individual depts., the family calls 911, the house is saved.

Or

The fire dept. is fully privatized, the family doesn't pay, they call 911, get no service.

(Or maybe in AC land they have time, while in their burning home, to bust out a phone book, call each individual fire company, and compare rates before deciding on which provider to use. Oh, and they'd need to check out some online ratings for the companies, to really be sure they're getting the best bang for their buck.. While their house is on fire.)

Last edited by Anais; 10-06-2010 at 01:56 PM.
10-06-2010 , 01:59 PM
That Cranik guy was on Olbermann last night, he said that 3 dogs and a cat died in the fire, did they just let the critters burn up over a lousy 75$ bucks?
10-06-2010 , 02:04 PM
Typical liberal media: considering the cost of lost lives when I bet they didn't even talk about how much gas would have been used to drive out to this man's, who didn't pay his protection money, house. Lost lives? Think of the lost money!!
10-06-2010 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
If the family was black would there be more or less outrage?
You knew that answer to that before you typed it.

Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton would be having a press conference in front of the burnt out home at this moment.
10-06-2010 , 02:12 PM
Yeah they should have just paid the lousy $75, we agree.
10-06-2010 , 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aabelno
You knew that answer to that before you typed it.

Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton would be having a press conference in front of the burnt out home at this moment.
Who's the, as you may put it, "red-neck, beer swilling, cigarette smoking, lottery ticket buying" equivalent that represents the trailer-set?
10-06-2010 , 02:16 PM
10-06-2010 , 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargent D
That Cranik guy was on Olbermann last night, he said that 3 dogs and a cat died in the fire, did they just let the critters burn up over a lousy 75$ bucks?
He's just looking for sympathy. Boo-hoo.

He should have paid the $75. He knew about the policy, and decided not to pay because he had more important things to do with the money. Like most low-class people, he didn't plan for the future and just wanted to satisfy his current desires (nicotine, alcohol, big screen TV in his 100 sq. ft. living room, etc.)

It would be horrible if kids were trapped inside and the FD had still let the place burn down (although I'm sure they wouldn't). Sucks that the animals got burned up, but animals are not people.
10-06-2010 , 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargent D
That Cranik guy was on Olbermann last night, he said that 3 dogs and a cat died in the fire, did they just let the critters burn up over a lousy 75$ bucks?
Yeah, im surprised someone didnt get shot over this. Esp when they turn up in order to stop the fire from spreading to the neighbours place while letting their burn down.
10-06-2010 , 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
Who's the, as you may put it, "red-neck, beer swilling, cigarette smoking, lottery ticket buying" equivalent that represents the trailer-set?
Great question. Here's the answer.

The trailer-set has never produced anyone smart enough to be a lawyer. So I guess they're out of luck.
10-06-2010 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomVeil
Yeah they should have just paid the lousy $75, we agree.
Or else the doggies burn...
10-06-2010 , 02:23 PM
I do think it's hilarious how his story has changed though.

original quote:

Quote:
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
New quote to ABC:

Quote:
"I just forgot to pay my $75," Cranick told ABC News. "I did it last year, the year before. ... It slipped my mind."

      
m