Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee

Dthief writes "From MSNBC: 'Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. "They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.'"

Comments

Who cares

[Drakin020]

Seriously this is stuff that does not belong on the front page of a technology website.

Re:Well Duh

[roman_mir]

Income tax is an atrocity committed upon free people to deprive them of their liberties and freedoms. Unfortunately the people are apparently not as free in their minds as some would believe, otherwise the income tax would never have passed as an idea in any free society ever.

Income tax requires you to submit to a degrading interrogation by the state, you are supposed to tell the state everything you do, how and why, etc.

Income tax also deprives people of freedoms in another terrible way: it lets the government grow indefinitely, even to the point where over 99% of income is taken away (point in case is USSR).

--

The correct way to provide funding for a minimum government is of-course through a selective sales tax, that would not tax items that are necessary for basic survival (so no taxing the poor). This does the following:

1. Lets you keep your liberties.
2. Lets you control the size of gov't and spending by controlling your own spending on taxable items.

Re:No, that's not it at all

[RightSaidFred99]

If the city started letting people pay the fee after they needed it, it would be like buying auto insurance after you've had a wreck and expecting the insurance company to cover you for that wreck. In other words, after a while, the only $75 payments they'd collect would be for the houses that actually caught on fire.

Prepare for some subtle sarcasm...

What's wrong with that? That's exactly and literally what our sweet ass new health care plan in the US will be doing. You can pay a fine that's well less than the price of insurance, and then just buy insurance if you get really sick. I mean, I just don't see any problem with that, what could possibly go wrong?

Re:"reason" doesn't mean what you think it does.

[fyngyrz]

In rural America, the types of places where we don't already have fire departments; house aren't next to each other. They are often miles apart.

Yeah. And so we shouldn't have postal service to them. Oh, wait. Or roads. Oh, wait. Or defense. Oh, wait.

The fire department had no trouble protecting the paying customer from the spread of the fire. He wasn't placed in danger by his neighbor's decision not to pay.

Of course he was. The FD handled the particular version of danger that cropped up this time; but there are times they don't, and the neighbor loses everything. This chance is exacerbated by letting a fire get fully involved.

This guy didn't want to pay for optional fire coverage; so he didn't. I support his right to do that. It didn't hurt anyone but himself.

Yes, it did. It killed the pets. And, as I explained above and you ignored, there are circumstances where people are in the house you're not aware of. The risk is substantially greater than just to the owner. This is why it shouldn't be a matter of personal choice.

Eating Vegetables is good too. Should I be forced to pay taxes so that the government can provide free vegetables to myself and my neighbors? What about working out? why not let me decide if I want to do it?

No. These substantially affect only you. A fire isn't comparable to "eat your veggies" or "maintain your body" and you're being disingenuous (or worse) when you try to draw the comparison. Yes, you should be able to decide what you do with you body. No, you should not be able to decide not to take fire safety measures with property that is physically connected to other people's properties and/or resources (water, roads, power and/or gas and/or communications lines, etc.) and where under your roof, you EVER allow another living being to visit.

I'm 100% libertarian when you can demonstrate that your choice only substantially puts yourself and lives classed as consenting, informed adults at risk; but as it is utterly impossible to do this in the case of a house or property fire, which by their very nature can spread uncontrollably, and are likely to if not fought without quarter, this is not an area where your liberties can reasonably trump another's liberties.

You want to eat poorly and not exercise? You want to take drugs? You want to frequent prostitutes, or be one? I'm all for your choice. 100%.

Personal liberties only have a rational meaning when they can be demonstrated to have a scope that you can limit to yourself by your own actions. As soon as you think it means you can make any choice you like just because it's your choice, you've entirely perverted the entire concept.