Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness*. And they're in the declaration, not the constitution.

If it is acceptable to infringe on people's "rights" to have their houses burn down, or something, in the city, then it is the same in the country. Hence the comparisons of the two. If it is unacceptable, well, bring the pitchforks, but leave the torches at home, and storm city hall.

If it is acceptable in the country and doable in the country and not being done then odds are the issue is about money.

No where did I write the whole thing off as "just about money." I was referring to the municipal provider. As noted in that paragraph.

I'm admittedly in a pissy mood tonight, but seriously I'd prefer it if people read my entire posts before mischaracterizing my point. Disagree all you like, but do so honestly.


*Can't undo the edits of Jefferson and Franklin, even if they lifted the phrasing from Virginia.

... because large swaths of Americans couldn't own property, but those property guarantees still made themselves into law for property owners, right?

I have no idea what you're saying.
Seriously, none.

The quote from the VA Declaration of Rights:
ETA: I think I get what you're saying, but your original point, and your misquote, was wrong. We infringe on people's "rights" to their property all the time. Either you can't tell anyone what to do with their property or you can, within reasonable limits for the welfare of all. America has gone with "you can, within reason." You can disagree, but we've been long down that road.

I may be misstating my point in a rush to get back to online poker, but I'm stating that when the Declaration was signed, women, blacks, etc. couldn't own property.

Did the original VA DoR apply to those folks? Because it would seem contrary to many founders' homesteads, but I could be wrong.

I don't know, why did you mis-cite the line about property in the first place? You brought it out here, so you gotta do something with it. I showed the VA DoR because it was the only apparent source for your comment and I'm frankly baffled at why its relevant myself.

Right, this is exactly what I'm saying - you have to provide a compelling reason to step on someone's proverbial toes.

This story does not seem like a compelling reason, unless you're willing to open the doors to all of the arguments I've offered. You're arguing a "greater-good" issue when something literally only affects one family. There's no "greater-good" benefit, and you haven't proven the "whole" isn't better off - I suspect they are, that the extra $75 over time would be better than a single fire.

Also, if you want, I can try to find the #s of people with legitimate (not snake-oil) earthquake insurance from clients - I guarantee it'll be MUCH lower than you expect. Lower than flood insurance in non-Zone A/B areas. Much lower.

I mis-cited out of stupidity and poor memory - my point, though, was that money isn't a fungible issue. It's not self-evident that "it's only $75" is even a valid point, because that dude gets the benefit of the doubt w/re: his property/money, within reason and within the law (and this isn't recent - it's kind of the basis of what we do here).

I missed all of this in the cross-posting, which might be part of the problem.

This is demonstrably false - first, because your language is unnecessarily inflammatory (if this is a "rights" issue, it's not so in the way you've described here), and second, because situational or temporal issues often dictate differences in how rights are applied.

I address this above - but "money" isn't some fungible topic. It isn't an unlimited well. And it isn't anything that is guaranteed.

Note this is kind of at odds with the above.

And there is no municipal provider - at least none directly responsible. This is completely beyond what would be expected. This changes the calculus.

That's fair, and I didn't mean to mischaracterize - I promise it wasn't intentionally taking points out of context or anything else.

Ditto this.

Also, if the firefighters had gone ahead and put out the house fire how many people would pay the $75 for the next year? The ability to assist anyone at anytime would be compromised.

The radio report I heard said it was the neighbor's house. Field or house, either way, the neighbor suffered property damage.

I could agree with this IF and ONLY IF it could be guaranteed that by letting this person's property burn, it would not affect any of his/her neighbors. Since this is impossible to guarantee, I cannot accept this as an argument. If a fire like this sparked a wild fire that burned hundreds of thousands of acres, took lives, etc., would you feel the same way?

These are the same people who complain about paying taxes because we don't need public schools, and all the cops do is give me speeding tickets, and we don't need any new roads; the ones we have right now are just fine.

They lived in a rural area outside of the coverage area, were offered the service at a ridiculously cheap amount and didn't pay. They even said they thought in case of an emergency they'd be able to get away with it. They deserve everything they got. It's too bad the neighbor had difficulty, and they should have to pay the neighbor's damages as well. But the firemen did nothing wrong and hopefully this will serve as a lesson that the cost of 3 cases of beer per year might be better used for the health and safety of your family and your property.

This is very intriguing to me, as my sil & I had an argument about this very thing about a month ago. She said that the firemen have to put out a fire, whether or not you pay them. In my mother's and my borough, you make a "donation" of $50 a year to the fire department, and she doesn't think we should pay the $50 on my mother's house. :rolleyes: I have many friends & family members who are or have been firemen. The amount of training that they do is incredible! Frankly, I don't know how they do it, especially when there's a death.

If nothing ever happens, it's worth $50 to know that the firemen would be there, should something happen. I do feel very sorry about the pets that died, though.

I think plenty would if the firefighters saved the house, then billed them the entire cost of the rescue effort. That's what happens with insurance, right? You either pay this low fee or, if you refuse, you can gamble and end up paying it all. The couple wouldn't have lost everything, the fire department would recoup the money from them, and even more neighbors would probably pay the $75 instead of the bajillion they see these two paying back.

In theory this sounds like a good idea and one that could have been implemented by the fire department. In practice there is absolute no guarantee that the family would pay the bill. We don't know why they didn't pay the original $75. It could have been because they didn't have the money, they didn't prioritze the money, or they felt that they should be taken care of without having to pay the fee. Those same reasons could be used against paying a much, much steeper bill sent after the fact.

Admittedly I am looking through my own prism of being in healthcare for 15 years and dealing with people who use all of the above to keep from paying their bills. Yes, that makes me a bit jaded and yes, that saddens me. However, it has also exposed me to a reasonably-sized segment of the population that just doesn't pay bills and has absolutely no qualms about it.

I am guessing it was well known in those parts that no subscription fee = no services. At least it is crystal clear in my area. Crystal clear. I find it very hard to believe that the family didn't know that they were taking a chance by not subscribing to the fire service, which was optional.

Under what obligation would the homeowner have to repay the fire department?

Now you're requiring the firefighters to get a binding legal consent that the dude will pay whatever it costs to put out the fire, in addition to whatever else is going on? Seriously.

Also, why not just allow them to gamble, oh, in the way it currently allows? You pay the $75 or gamble the fire?

I think you're not even close to how this would (or should) really work.