Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I like you a lot, you seem like a bright and well-meaning person . . . but you really can't see how differing odds can and should influence public policy? I'm kind of confused here - you're not willing at all to look at the other side here?

Do you own earthquake insurance? If you're anywhere near the Midwest, the risk is minuscule but the risk of ruin huge. You're apparently arguing that any massive ROR is something people should be forced to mitigate - so should we have mandatory earthquake insurance?

Also, fire is BETTER than flood plains, and not worse, as far as comparison - we all have the SAME fire exposure, minus (essentially) "smoking" or "making fireworks."

I guess I'm just confused why you're so intractable here.

I don't own a house, but I believe that a surprising number of people are covered for earthquakes in the midwest because, you know, we had a 5.0 a few years ago and the New Madrid fault is right here.

When it comes to policy, yes, these things should be, for better or worse, considered. However from a policy standpoint, making a mandatory fee (and yes less than 75 makes sense since more people would be bought into it, unless this was the one lone holdout) does not cost more as long as you're already collecting some form of taxes from the residents. So I see no benefit to "society" by having the fee be optional. I see no benefit to the individual to be able to opt out either. If it were 2k a year, talk to me again.


It's not just that I dislike the weighing of lives as if they were coins on a scale, it's that no matter how you weigh them I see no way that not paying for a fire department is a benefit. None. I don't see a single argument here in this thread that is convincing. That's why I'm not moving on it, because I see absolutely no reason to move.

And if rural communities are equally at risk for fire- flammable materials, tanks of fertilizer, brush/prairie/forest fires, tractor or other vehicle fires, lightning, random electrical shorts, arson, whatever the case may be - it makes no sense to me to have differing policies towards fire protection purely on the grounds of location. (Obviously I don't know the statistics, but fire is more like a tornado than an earthquake as far as its frequency and effects. It's far more random and not as widely devastating as floods or earthquakes. However cross comparing disasters really isn't effective or relevant here) The city is willing to and capable of provide service to the county residents. From there it's purely about money. Which means it's doable and both stupid and irresponsible not to manage.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And if rural communities are equally at risk for fire- flammable materials, tanks of fertilizer, brush/prairie/forest fires, tractor or other vehicle fires, lightning, random electrical shorts, arson, whatever the case may be - it makes no sense to me to have differing policies towards fire protection purely on the grounds of location. (Obviously I don't know the statistics, but fire is more like a tornado than an earthquake as far as its frequency and effects. It's far more random and not as widely devastating as floods or earthquakes. However cross comparing disasters really isn't effective or relevant here) The city is willing to and capable of provide service to the county residents. From there it's purely about money. Which means it's doable and both stupid and irresponsible not to manage.

If you're going to write something off as "purely about money" then we'll clearly never find a common ground - remember that it was originally life, liberty and pursuit of property. Money matters - it isn't a minor speed bump, it's an actual protected right for Americans.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If you're going to write something off as "purely about money" then we'll clearly never find a common ground - remember that it was originally life, liberty and pursuit of property. Money matters - it isn't a minor speed bump, it's an actual protected right for Americans.

Actually it's life liberty and property, not pursuit of. And it was an English concept that actually never made it into the Declaration.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Actually it's life liberty and property, not pursuit of. And it was an English concept that actually never made it into the Declaration.

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

... 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:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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

The quote from the VA Declaration of Rights:

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If you're going to write something off as "purely about money" then we'll clearly never find a common ground - remember that it was originally life, liberty and pursuit of property. Money matters - it isn't a minor speed bump, it's an actual protected right for Americans.

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.

[KSig RC]

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

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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