andrel wrote:
> You probably have no idea how utterly absurd this kind of logic sounds 
> to me (and probably most other Europeans).

It sounds fairly absurd to me. The idea that you wouldn't collect taxes to 
fund a fire station relies on most everyone donating to maintain the 
volunteer station. If most people think they're going to get fire service 
even if they don't pay, the whole thing falls apart. (Indeed, it's this 
"prisoner dilemma" sort of problem I think governments are most suited to 
solving.)

> One factor may be that we live in a situation where every fire may 
> spread to a neighbouring house. 

That's probably the actual reason why they showed up, mind. :-)  That and to 
rescue any actual lives that might have needed rescuing.  I remember the 
comments were along the lines of "he can buy another house with the money he 
saved not paying for fire fighters."

> Another is that a fire department is a 
> community service. Paid by taxes, even the volunteers. It is extremely 
> hard to imagine a situation where they are paid in such a perverse way. 
> That simply does not fit with the image of a fire department.

It was pretty uncommon even back when I was young, and moreso now, I think. 
FWIW, we had volunteer ambulance drivers too. More than one band practice 
got canceled in the middle when the director had to go drive someone to the 
hospital.

> FYI the rule here is more or less that if something can happen in a 
> random way and the negative effect can exceed what you can afford, you 
> have to insure that. 

For everything? That seems a bit much. Here, it's generally either paid with 
taxes (i.e., most fire fighting, etc), required to insure against *others* 
getting hurt (e.g., you have to insure your car against other peoples' 
medical bills, but not against damage you cause to your own car), etc.

But if you're renting an apartment and you chose not to buy insurance on 
your stuff, and the apartment complex burns down, well, that's the gamble 
you took trying to save money. (Indeed, I was rather annoyed my hard-earned 
money went to paying off the property of people down the road when their 
apartment burned down. I could have saved a bundle on renter insurance.)

> In many cases you do not even have to 
> take any action. Insurance is obligatory and handled via your employer 
> who pays the bills before handing you your money. And that is probably 
> just as alien to you as the inactive fireman is to me.

Not really. Here we don't call it insurance, we call it taxes, that's all. 
If it actually is itemized when taken out and the money actually goes 
towards the insurance more than the administration and profit thereof, 
that's even better.

I have nothing against paying taxes for fire fighting, rescuing lost hikers, 
paying for the phone service of people too poor to afford it, etc.

That said, requiring someone to risk their life for free when you're 
unwilling to help them out before you need them seems like more of a dick 
move to me than not helping the dick out when the house catches on fire.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message