Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[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

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.

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).

[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.