Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
There's a fundamental difference, however, in two key areas:
1 - Police presence (and hospitals/EMTs, to a separate/different extent) can't easily separate out one citizen's issues from another's. Restated: basically every police issue is a public issue; many rural fire issues are not a public issue.
2 - There are significant changes in the "fundamentals" when you fundamentally alter the concentration of people. Delhi deals with different issues than Denison, IA right?
It might be. You don't know that, though. This person may have booked the $$ saved and can afford to rebuild. You're essentially arguing that a correct assessment of a cost/benefit analysis is the wrong decision - you realize that, right?
None of these points are persuasive - minors? Really?
No, it's not - this is the same as spending the kids' food money on Powerball. There's no law against that, right?
It's not a crazy concept, and in a massive number of situations, I agree it's the correct thing to do. That doesn't mean it's correct across the board, right?
Unless you think popularity of an idea equates to utility?
|
I think that allowing someone's house to burn down for the lack of a 75 dollar fee is a stupid one. I think allowing people to "opt in" to fire department services is a stupid one. And I think that lives don't come down to cost/benefit analysis answers (which ignores the fact that the guy didn't actually make the "right" analysis nor did his local government.)
Not sure how
every police issue is a public issue yet essentially no fire department issue in a rural setting is.
And yes, it's illegal to starve your children. Stupid comparison.
Threaded Mode
