Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If a policeman stands by while you get robbed, you have a right to sue him.

That was your first mistake. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, you don't.

Again, case law has determined the government has no duty to protect your sorry ass.

so the law is wrong. happens all the time.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If a policeman stands by while you get robbed, you have a right to sue him.

That was your first mistake. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, you don't.

Again, case law has determined the government has no duty to protect your sorry ass.

so the law is wrong. happens all the time.

No, its not. You're wrong. The government has no duty to you. It never has. This is a joy common law going back to the William guy. Its also on the Spanish side as well. The crown has no duty to you peasant. Now get back there and bring me more mead!

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:There was no damage to the neighbor's house. Just Cranick's.

That should have read "damage to the neighbour's property" and the point still stands.

If by "correct", you mean "wrong", sure.
The fire started in barrels outside of the Cranicks' home. At this time of year and knowing people like the Cranicks, it's likely they were burning leaves and left it unattended. So it's their own damned fault.

That's some pretty wild speculation. Well, speculation is pretty generous, basically you're just making stuff up to villify people you know nothing about because that's easier than considering the idea that a resourcing scheme is poorly established.

Of course it's speculation Sebster. There's been nothing to say what was in the barrels, but every newspost I've seen starts off with the line that the fire started in barrels outside of Cranick's mobile home. Making a leap of logic, from the experience of currently living in an unincorporated with neighbors very much like Cranick, I stated that "given the time of year, it's likely they were burning leaves and left it unattended".

Because that's what my dumbass neighbors do, every bloody weekend.

More speculation - there are lots of reasons to move into the country besides chasing the dream of rugged individualism. A family might want to have more pets than city by-laws would allow. They might like the peace and quiet. You don't know, so stop making things up.

So, it's okay for you to make things up but not me? Grand!

And if the city can't force payment, then you look at countless other options. A volunteer fire service. Incorporation, generating funds to build their own fire dept or pay another service for blanket coverage. A deal with state emergency services. There are lots of options, all of them quite practical and a whole lot smarter than leaving a fire to burn.

The county's taxpayers, which would presumably include Cranick, voted against county and volunteer fire departments. They also voted against incorporation.
So, that's three of your options down. There is also no "state fire department" option, given how friggin' illogical and useless that would be. There's also no real "state emergency medical services" for the same reason, outside of in some states Lifeflight.

There's also no "private" fire departments simply because of the logistics involved.

Any options I missed shooting down?

Guitardian wrote: I love how all the brits seem to be pointing the finger and saying "for shame" about the U.S. system. I, like Redbeard, am also a Brit living in the U.S., and I have to agree with the perspective of the people who live here. Sorry Brits, but your overbearing socialist-leaning system has its own problems too. Sorry, we don't get housing or health care or expect the dole and free services to wipe our noses for us paid for by other people's taxes either.

As I explained earlier, you don't have to pick between nanny state and a properly constructed fire service.

This goes all the way down the ladder to a personal level. Here in the U.S. we do not like the government taking half of our money and spending it how they think best for us. We resist taxes, and favor personal responsibility as much as we can. Some things, granted, are necessary to be governmentally regulated on some level (federal military, state for education and roads, township water treatment, police, fire etc) but we like to be personally responsible for as much as we can, not just trust the government to handle everything for us.

Many things are regulated by government because they provide a general good. In this case a user pays system for fire insurance results in people who pay in to the system still risking their homes burning down if their neighbours are derelict.

That exact thing became very clear in the US in the 19th C, when private fire fighting companies would refuse to put out fires on houses that hadn't paid. The result was many fires that got quickly out of control, and people died.

It was clear that this man, in opting not to live in the township, had taken on a personal responsibility to see to his own safety. He failed in his responsibility. It is sad that his house burned down, but as the spokeswoman for the town pointed out, if we let the fees slide until needed, nobody would pay them.

Yes, which is why you don't have a system which allows people to opt out, forcing a situation where firemen watch a fire burn, threatening to spread and possibly grow out of control. Instead you construct a better system. That idea really is the easiest thing you'll read all day. Please just accept it.

Lacking for a government provided fire service by living in an area with no local government means taking on that responsibility yourself. For everyone who lives in town paying taxes that fund the fire department, and everyone outside of town not having to, is unfair to the people living in town who are footing the bill for freeloaders. That's why the town offered their services to outsiders for a small fee. He didn't want to pay the fee.

And neighbours who did pay the fee? Including the one who saw the unattended fire spread to his property?

Kilcrazy asked how far should responsibilities of the overnment go. Indeed, this is the point I think most United Statesians question. We don't see governments from southeast Asia rushing aid to clean up an oil spill that affects the north American coast line, do we? Oddly enough, United Statesia tries its best to be wherever it may be needed, whether as a military presence, a humanitarian aid effort, or a diplomatic mediator, stretching itself and it's people's resources very thin by doing what countries with less sense of responsibility fail to do.

That has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about fire control, and system necessary to limit the damage they cause.

So to all the people who live in more socialist places, don't pshaw our cold-hearted attitude toward this. We are big fans of personal responsibility, something that is quite a strange idea when your government holds your hand and makes all your decisions and sees to all your needs for you.

This is gibberish. This issue has nothing to do with national differences. We're really not as different as you'd believe... in fact, we have many failed and disfunctional systems of our own. Many of those systems, while in obvious need for reform, are obstructed by the same fuzzy headed thinking we've seen throughout this thread. Hey, up until ten years ago we had a pretty poor model for funding emergency services control (it was charged on insurance polices, and many companies would simply insure overseas and avoid the surcharge - reform was introduced to attach it instead to rate payments) and this was opposed for incredibly stupid reasons. I mean, we didn't see the land of the free silliness you get here, but WA's own version, which amounts to 'we're special so stuff that works elsewhere can't work here so we going to be different for the sake of being different'. None of it meant anything, reform passed and the overseas insurance loophole was closed.

The point, in it's entirety once more, is that if you build a system where firemen are told to watch a fire burn, you have a bad system. It's an outcome that may well cost lives, that has a precedent in your country for costing lives. So the simple, obvious conclusion is to reform the system.

All the 'but America is different' stuff has nothing to do with a basic issue of proper governance.

What they should have done is put out the fire, then hand the guy a bill.

Kilkrazy wrote:What they should have done is put out the fire, then hand the guy a bill.

Agreed actually.

Of course after he hit the fire chief, they should have popped with the hose, full force, until he ran off or started crying like a girl.

Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's speculation Sebster.

When you say 'likely' you're not acknowledging the very speculative nature of your suggestion. Good to see you've accepted that, though, so moving on...

So, it's okay for you to make things up but not me? Grand!

I didn't make anything up. I pointed out someone might move to the country for all kinds of reasons. Unlike you, I never said any one reason was likely, based on what a neighbour does. That's the difference between listing possibilities and making wild speculation.

I'm going to honest with you, it is quite ridiculous that I had to type out the above. What I wrote was a very basic, very obvious thing, and your claim that I was speculating at all in comparison to your own efforts is obviously nonsense. Please think about what you've typed before you hit send. It would improve the quality of debate immensely.

And if the city can't force payment, then you look at countless other options. A volunteer fire service. Incorporation, generating funds to build their own fire dept or pay another service for blanket coverage. A deal with state emergency services. There are lots of options, all of them quite practical and a whole lot smarter than leaving a fire to burn.

sebster wrote:[When fires burn on government land, who puts them out?
****the government agency that owns the land.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's speculation Sebster.

When you say 'likely' you're not acknowledging the very speculative nature of your suggestion. Good to see you've accepted that, though, so moving on...

Sebster wrote:

So, it's okay for you to make things up but not me? Grand!

I didn't make anything up. I pointed out someone might move to the country for all kinds of reasons. Unlike you, I never said any one reason was likely, based on what a neighbour does. That's the difference between listing possibilities and making wild speculation.

I'm going to honest with you, it is quite ridiculous that I had to type out the above. What I wrote was a very basic, very obvious thing, and your claim that I was speculating at all in comparison to your own efforts is obviously nonsense. Please think about what you've typed before you hit send. It would improve the quality of debate immensely.

You didn't "list possibilities". You speculated on Cranick's reason for living in an unincorporated area of a county, outside of the jurisdiction of any city fire departments.

Sebster wrote:
And if the city can't force payment, then you look at countless other options. A volunteer fire service. Incorporation, generating funds to build their own fire dept or pay another service for blanket coverage. A deal with state emergency services. There are lots of options, all of them quite practical and a whole lot smarter than leaving a fire to burn.

Kanluwen wrote:The county's taxpayers, which would presumably include Cranick, voted against county and volunteer fire departments. They also voted against incorporation.
So, that's three of your options down. There is also no "state fire department" option, given how friggin' illogical and useless that would be. There's also no real "state emergency medical services" for the same reason, outside of in some states Lifeflight.

When fires burn on government land, who puts them out?

The Forestry Department.
This wasn't "government land". This is privately owned property, which was purposely purchased away from the city for whatever reason.

Sebster wrote:

There's also no "private" fire departments simply because of the logistics involved.

Did anyone suggest anything of the sort? Why did you make that impractical solution up?

You did actually, when stating:

Sebster wrote:pay another service for blanket coverage

Sebster wrote:

Any options I missed shooting down?

You didn't shoot anything down, please stop with the grandstanding. You pointed out that people voted against incorporation, and against a volunteer fire department (got a source for that by the way?) This prompted you to speculate some more about the voting practices of Cranick, despite knowing nothing but his name and his failure to pay one bill one time.

You then assume that because something was rejected once, it will be rejected again and forever more. Which is nonsense - the absolute failure of the current system wasn't as clear then as it is now. What may have appeared unnecessary when before will likely be a lot more appealing now.

Read any news story regarding it, and it's been noted that the county fire department idea was voted down.

And considering how much it costs to run a volunteer fire department, and the refusal to pay a simple $75 I can't see a VFD going over too well here. Volunteer Fire Departments are run off of funds donated from the community. If there's not enough money to justify them...you get cases like this, where unincorporated areas have to pay a fee to get service from the cities.

Can I walk into a store, not pay for something, and expect an employee to help me carry it out to my car?

Guitardian wrote:Can I walk into a store, not pay for something, and expect an employee to help me carry it out to my car?

It depends on the type of store, why you are there, and what you are getting.

Kilkrazy wrote:What they should have done is put out the fire, then hand the guy a bill.

Some of the other nearby FDs do that. $500 for responding to a rural call, which the homeowners pay less than 50% of the time, and there's no way for the FD to press the issue for non-payers.

Do you call Geico to set up an account right after you smash your car into a tree? No you call them before you ever needed them. That's the point of INSURE-ance. We can all look back and say "damn I wish I was covered". Should have thought about that before the catastrophic accident". Hindsight is a virtue of the pathetic.

Being self-employed most of the time, I don't have any health coverage. If I fall off a ladder that's on me, I won't try to foist the bill upon on whoever I'm working for. Solution: be careful and don't fall off a ladder. If you don't have fire service, be careful and don't catch your place on fire.

The money all has to come from somewhere. In a heavily taxed system I would expect to be covered by the government who I pay to handle such things. I wouldn't expect the government I don't pay to handle things for me. At least in a free market system I have the choice (and consequences) of deciding whether or not I need insurance. The choice was his, the consequences are his.

I like this idea of of emergency services being similar to buying luxury goods with disposable income, and mostly because we aren't smart enough to realize some things are good for the community and some things are better for the private sector.

Bookwrack wrote:http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

In summary: Rural homeowner didn't pay $75 to get fire department service, which was extended to people in the countryside outside the department's coverage. House caught fire, fire department didn't stop it from burning down. They did save his neighbor's house, who did pay the coverage fee.

This is fethed up in all sorts of ways, and no one is going to come out of this looking good, but

Lovely.

This is how Crassus, the first mega-tycoon in recorded history reportedly made his fortune. Though Fire 'insurance' in ancient Rome. The policy wasnt exactly popular 2000 years ago, why reinvent it now?

Orlanth wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

In summary: Rural homeowner didn't pay $75 to get fire department service, which was extended to people in the countryside outside the department's coverage. House caught fire, fire department didn't stop it from burning down. They did save his neighbor's house, who did pay the coverage fee.

This is fethed up in all sorts of ways, and no one is going to come out of this looking good, but

Lovely.

This is how Crassus, the first mega-tycoon in recorded history reportedly made his fortune. Though Fire 'insurance' in ancient Rome. The policy wasnt exactly popular 2000 years ago, why reinvent it now?

Didn't he offer to buy their burning houses, and would put them out if they sold at exhorbitantly low prices?

Guitardian wrote:
As Loki Old Fart pointed out, a good question is that if the United Statesia can afford to buy fighter planes, then why not more fire trucks?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't Frazz said the goverment has no duty to protect the public. I pointed out it does otherwise it wouldn't have a army and police force etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire fighters in NYC don't cross the bridge to fight a fire in Jersey, even though they are right across the bridge, that's not only in a different county it is in a different state. Different regultions, different insurance concerns, different budgets at stake. A fire in Jersey is Jersey's responsibility. They have their resources, and NYC has their resources.

Well thats stupid aswell A fire is nobodies friend, a fire that is your neighbors problem today may be yours tommorrow.

Kilcrazy asked how far should responsibilities of the overnment go. Indeed, this is the point I think most United Statesians question. We don't see governments from southeast Asia rushing aid to clean up an oil spill that affects the north American coast line, do we? Oddly enough, United Statesia tries its best to be wherever it may be needed, whether as a military presence, a humanitarian aid effort, or a diplomatic mediator, stretching itself and it's people's resources very thin by doing what countries with less sense of responsibility fail to do. These very same countries that are always dissing us "Americans" as beeing overbearing and/or lazy and/or fat stupid etcetera etcetera. Funny how these elitist European enlightened cultures quit their codescending "stupid Americans" attitude pretty quickly when you need help.

Funny how everytime america helps us, we end up three generations in debt. Even better when we help you we end up in debt


Fire departments risk lives, spend money and effort in doing so. Where does that money and effort come from if people aren't willing to pay for it? I think it's a good lesson for all United Statesians to notice. You get what you pay for.
So the average american pays less and is happy with gak, ok I can live with that

loki old fart wrote:

Guitardian wrote:
As Loki Old Fart pointed out, a good question is that if the United Statesia can afford to buy fighter planes, then why not more fire trucks?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't Frazz said the goverment has no duty to protect the public. I pointed out it does otherwise it wouldn't have a army and police force etc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire fighters in NYC don't cross the bridge to fight a fire in Jersey, even though they are right across the bridge, that's not only in a different county it is in a different state. Different regultions, different insurance concerns, different budgets at stake. A fire in Jersey is Jersey's responsibility. They have their resources, and NYC has their resources.

Well thats stupid aswell A fire is nobodies friend, a fire that is your neighbors problem today may be yours tommorrow.

Kilcrazy asked how far should responsibilities of the overnment go. Indeed, this is the point I think most United Statesians question. We don't see governments from southeast Asia rushing aid to clean up an oil spill that affects the north American coast line, do we? Oddly enough, United Statesia tries its best to be wherever it may be needed, whether as a military presence, a humanitarian aid effort, or a diplomatic mediator, stretching itself and it's people's resources very thin by doing what countries with less sense of responsibility fail to do. These very same countries that are always dissing us "Americans" as beeing overbearing and/or lazy and/or fat stupid etcetera etcetera. Funny how these elitist European enlightened cultures quit their codescending "stupid Americans" attitude pretty quickly when you need help.

Funny how everytime america helps us, we end up three generations in debt. Even better when we help you we end up in debt


Fire departments risk lives, spend money and effort in doing so. Where does that money and effort come from if people aren't willing to pay for it? I think it's a good lesson for all United Statesians to notice. You get what you pay for.
So the average american pays less and is happy with gak, ok I can live with that

Don't you still owe us for lend lease? Don't you still owe us for...SPAM!

The average american has the choice to live in gak and pay less, or get what he pays for. We like having the choice. Maybe that makes us cold unfeeling and barbaric to you, but we kind of like having the choice in our decisions, and resent people foisting them upon us by government mandate. I like paying my taxes because I like roads. I don't like paying taxes so that welfare moms get free housing when I have to scrape a budget every month to make my own way, or freeloading country folk can have free fire services that I have to pay taxes to recieve.

This is not about a danger to the 'community', this was not the community. This was an isolated area, it isn't like it would be a repeat of the Great Chicago Fire or anything. One house is one house. Sucks for the guy living there, but hey it sucks for the fire department who is morally expected to risk their lives or look like donkey-caves on national news for a guy who never cared about them before he needed them. Again I say, hindsight is a virtue of the pathetic.

(btw can you fix your quoting so my words are not intermingled with yours all under a box that says "guitardian wrote:" ? it's kind of like putting words in my mouth and a bit difficult to follow who is saying what)

We finished paying for the Lend Lease a few years ago. It was reported at the time.

Kilkrazy wrote:We finished paying for the Lend Lease a few years ago. It was reported at the time.

and what about...SPAM!!!

I thought they still owed us for inventing the technology and modernizing the post WWII infrastructure that made them capable of dominating the car and home electronics industries in the 80s. dont they? Oh wait... all the technology invented by us better exploited by foreign nations is a free-for-all for everyone. Nobody owes us for that kind of thing. England and France don't owe the United States either for all the resources used 70 years ago then do they? All that stuff is in the past, right? The U.S. hasn't consistently put themselves on the line for its allies? Hell if I was a dictator I would be demanding tribute from every country that United Statesians died to protect/liberate/advance.

The Queen still owes me back pay reparations for my family being serfs in 1100 A.D. I should probably send her an invoice. Compounded with interest, I think I could get at least one piece of the crown jewels and a public appology for serfdom out of it.

Guitardian wrote:The Queen still owes me back pay reparations for my family being serfs in 1100 A.D. I should probably send her an invoice. Compounded with interest, I think I could get at least one piece of the crown jewels and a public appology for serfdom out of it.

I think you are more likely to be hung, drawn and quartered for treason

Guitardian wrote:I thought they still owed us for inventing the technology and modernizing the post WWII infrastructure that made them capable of dominating the car and home electronics industries in the 80s. dont they?

If you want to pay for all the british inventions

Guitardian wrote:The Queen still owes me back pay reparations for my family being serfs in 1100 A.D. I should probably send her an invoice. Compounded with interest, I think I could get at least one piece of the crown jewels and a public appology for serfdom out of it.

I'll ask my old man to look back thru the family history, see if you ever worked for us, if so I'll send you a couple of quid, you sound like you need it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What they should have done is put out the fire, then hand the guy a bill.

Agreed actually.

Of course after he hit the fire chief, they should have popped with the hose, full force, until he ran off or started crying like a girl.

That sounds fair to me

Since when is a contractual debt even remotely the same as reparations? That isn't a very good analogy at all for the issue. Hmmph.

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Amaya wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

So we have a right to services we don't pay for?

your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you calld 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF

If you lived in Texas and called the NYPD would that be fair? Its the same thing.

................how?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
No, its not. You're wrong. The government has no duty to you. It never has. This is a joy common law going back to the William guy. Its also on the Spanish side as well. The crown has no duty to you peasant. Now get back there and bring me more mead!

I know..... it's been all down hill since 1789.....

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Amaya wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

So we have a right to services we don't pay for?

your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you calld 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF

If you lived in Texas and called the NYPD would that be fair? Its the same thing.

................how?

You're asking one juridisction to take care of another jurisdiction and saying you have that right.

Kilkrazy wrote:What they should have done is put out the fire, then hand the guy a bill.

exactly


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I like this idea of of emergency services being similar to buying luxury goods with disposable income

qft

This thread has got boring.