On 24-8-2009 23:34, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/24/09 16:05, andrel wrote:
>> One factor may be that we live in a situation where every fire may
>> spread to a neighbouring house. Another is that a fire department is a
> 
>     Which is why it should be taken care of by the city. A voluntary 
> service is not obligated, just as you are not obligated to volunteer.
> 
>> community service. Paid by taxes, even the volunteers. It is extremely
> 
>     We're explicitly discussing something *not* paid for by taxes.
> 
>> That simply does not fit with the image of a fire department.
> 
>     It's not the regular fire department. It's a volunteer one.

We do have them too, but equipment etc. is paid from taxes.

A volunteer fire department that can decide which fires they will and 
which they don't want to put out is not yet compatible with the world as 
I know it.

>> It is just as inconceivable as a doctor refusing to treat a patient
>> untill he pays money was a few years ago. Note that that is happening
> 
>     I'm not so sure. A doctor refusing someone at his practice may be 
> illegal. A doctor refusing to drive across the city while not on duty to 
> take care of a patient - probably not as bad.
> 
>     You're comparing someone who is paid with someone who isn't.
> 
>     Besides, there's the whole Hippocratic oath thing.

Indeed, but some thing seem to trump that oath, management.

Post a reply to this message