Libertarian fire dept. lets another home burn

Page 4 of 10 [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2011, 3:17 am

godoftruemercy wrote:
Uh, there should be no fee for a fire department. Because you're a monster if you think someone's home and possibly their FAMILY should burn because they didn't pay $75.


How do you propose to fund the service?

If the person burned out does not pay, then who does?

ruveyn



godoftruemercy
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 298

09 Dec 2011, 3:19 am

ruveyn wrote:
godoftruemercy wrote:
Uh, there should be no fee for a fire department. Because you're a monster if you think someone's home and possibly their FAMILY should burn because they didn't pay $75.


How do you propose to fund the service?

If the person burned out does not pay, then who does?

ruveyn


Taxes. On rich people. So poor people don't lose their homes.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2011, 3:29 am

godoftruemercy wrote:

Taxes. On rich people. So poor people don't lose their homes.


Here we go again. Loot the rich. Rich people have just as much right to their property as do less rich people. Property rights are a basic human right and do not depend on one's income level. The right to life, liberty and property are the foundations of a working republic.

You seem to be exercised by the fact the one person may have more than another person. If a person came by his assets honestly, what do you care how much he has or makes?

ruveyn



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Dec 2011, 4:51 am

I think another question should be why the unincorporated area had no provision for it's own fire department and the tax levy to fund one. How did people expect to get services they didn't pay for? That makes no sense at all.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Dec 2011, 5:03 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
The serious disanalogy being that care insurance payment occurs after the collision's occurred, so insurers can't mitigate it or the damage to other people. Letting fires burn is a f*cking stupid idea.

I support public insurance, btw.


You're right, it's a sloppy analogy on my part. A better one might be if I called AAA for emergency service after having not paid my membership dues, and then raised hell when their refusal to tow me for free caused some great harm to befall me. The important part is making a conscience decision not to pay for a service, and then getting angry when the unpaid for service is not provided anyway. In this case, I think you could extend the blame the county at large for not funding their own emergency service and instead leeching off the small town in the area, who graciously offer those services at an eminently reasonable price. Less than $8 a month? Choosing not to pay that is pretty damn negligent IMHO.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

09 Dec 2011, 5:59 am

That family took a stupid risk by not paying for the fire department, and now they're facing the consequences.

What if it was up to everyone to decide for themselves whether or not to pay for the fire department? Would a bunch of people just not pay, and then expect to freeload off of the people who do pay if their house catches fire?



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

09 Dec 2011, 10:02 am

godoftruemercy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
godoftruemercy wrote:
Uh, there should be no fee for a fire department. Because you're a monster if you think someone's home and possibly their FAMILY should burn because they didn't pay $75.


How do you propose to fund the service?

If the person burned out does not pay, then who does?

ruveyn


Taxes. On rich people. So poor people don't lose their homes.


LOL. After the raid, they'd still be rich, right?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2011, 10:14 am

Cyanide wrote:
That family took a stupid risk by not paying for the fire department, and now they're facing the consequences.

What if it was up to everyone to decide for themselves whether or not to pay for the fire department? Would a bunch of people just not pay, and then expect to freeload off of the people who do pay if their house catches fire?


The "soak the rich" crowd are the true advocates of free loading. Unfortunately some of the rich are just high class free-loaders themselves. The people who are the true creators of wealth, the technicians, the engineers, the physical and chemical scientists do not get paid but a fraction of what they produce.

The financial operators, the manipulators of tokens are collecting disproportionately.

ruveyn



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

09 Dec 2011, 11:13 am

I saw a graffiti stencil once that said "feed the poor, eat the rich!" that made me giggle.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


godoftruemercy
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 298

09 Dec 2011, 11:51 am

ruveyn wrote:
Cyanide wrote:
That family took a stupid risk by not paying for the fire department, and now they're facing the consequences.

What if it was up to everyone to decide for themselves whether or not to pay for the fire department? Would a bunch of people just not pay, and then expect to freeload off of the people who do pay if their house catches fire?


The "soak the rich" crowd are the true advocates of free loading. Unfortunately some of the rich are just high class free-loaders themselves. The people who are the true creators of wealth, the technicians, the engineers, the physical and chemical scientists do not get paid but a fraction of what they produce.

The financial operators, the manipulators of tokens are collecting disproportionately.

ruveyn


I'm not suggesting "soaking" the rich. I'm suggesting the people who can afford two homes and Birkins should have a higher tax rate, because they don't need their extra money. It's entirely possible this family simply didn't have $75 to spend on fire protection. As hard as that is to believe, money is just that tight for people nowadays. Because of the rich getting taxed less and all the dependable jobs being sent overseas. There are certain powers (the rich, libertarians) who want to make this country a third world hell because they don't want to pay taxes, and I don't think they should be allowed to do it. Declines in regulation of business, lowering of the tax rate, and rampant outsourcing are why America is no longer the prosperous country it was.

Actually, I might have been lying. Soak the rich! Hoo boy, college is radicalizing me. Here's a fun article: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/the_ins ... ng_family/

Tell me this is fair or right.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Dec 2011, 2:48 pm

It's amazing to me that Conservatives think that people are not entitled to fire protection.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2011, 2:49 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
It's amazing to me that Conservatives think that people are not entitled to fire protection.


They are. But it must be paid for. Nothing in this world is free of cost.

ruveyn



NextFact
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 298

09 Dec 2011, 3:50 pm

The importance of money has for so long been over exaggerated. In this case the $75 fee was more important than the persons home, this is a by product of a greedy and selfish capitalist society that put's money before everything, and now as we see money is in many cases more important than the life of a fellow creature. Me personally, I disagree with the entire American system and I aspire to move out of this country in my life time. Forget everything you were conditioned and educated to believe, America is the epicenter of materialism, greed, immorality and corruption.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Dec 2011, 3:58 pm

If you are a fire fighter why should you work for free to save someone's home?



NextFact
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 298

09 Dec 2011, 4:25 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
If you are a fire fighter why should you work for free to save someone's home?


Out of compassion and respect for your fellow man. Money is really not that important.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Dec 2011, 4:27 pm

Are not people motivated by greed rather than compassion?