The Atlantic really is a big ocean.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> So anyone who is capable of saving your property should be required to 
> voluntarily do so?

No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of 
a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be 
reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on 
duty'.

> And surely, if someone in your city is hungry and you have food in your pantry,
you're 
> an awful human being, right?

Yes, and stop calling me Shirley. </airplane!>

> Should the construction worker be required to rebuild your house for 
> free if it burns down in spite of the fire fighter's best efforts?

No.  But a volunteer member of FEMA or the Red Cross or Habitat for 
Humanity or whatever should be reasonably expected to rebuild the house 
when there is need and they have the resources and capability do so and 
can see the need.

> Am I beginning to sound like I play too much Bioshock? ;-)

Eh...haven't played Bioshock, so I'm missing the reference.  I assume 
something in-game's related?

> How about fires in different towns? Should they be required to drive 30 
> miles to go fight fires elsewhere?

If they've volunteered to do so.

> It boggles my mind that you see an obligation for volunteers to risk 
> their life for you, especially if you're completely unwilling to help 
> even a tiny bit. I didn't even take it as a given they'd put out the 
> fire in my house when I *did* pay. That's what volunteer *means*.

The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do, 
to bear that responsibility.  If you volunteer to join the army, you 
don't get to disregard this or that order because you're a volunteer. 
In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.

> Not paying volunteers $10 to help them buy the equipment and training 
> they need to more safely risk their life while saving your 
> million-dollar house is also pretty far down on the pole of being a 
> decent human being, I'd say.

Yes, but the one doesn't make the other correct or nobler.  And a 
firefighter's function is to preserve what life and property they can by 
extinguishing fires.  Deciding someone is unworthy of help is something 
you do after the fact.  Kind of the way hospitals are obligated to save 
a patient's life whether they can pay or not if they come into the ER.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of 
> a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be 
> reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on 
> duty'.

OK.

>> Am I beginning to sound like I play too much Bioshock? ;-)
> 
> Eh...haven't played Bioshock, so I'm missing the reference.  I assume 
> something in-game's related?

One main character is stereotypical Ayn Rand objectionist type. He's 
constantly getting on the PA saying things like "Is a farmer not entitled to 
the sweat of his brow?"

> The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do, 
> to bear that responsibility.  

They only volunteered to put out the fires of people who donated. Indeed, 
everybody knew that, or nobody else would have donated. You even got a 
sticker to put on your window to show it. :-)

> Yes, but the one doesn't make the other correct or nobler.  And a 
> firefighter's function is to preserve what life and property they can by 
> extinguishing fires.  Deciding someone is unworthy of help is something 
> you do after the fact. 

Not in this case. :-)

> Kind of the way hospitals are obligated to save 
> a patient's life whether they can pay or not if they come into the ER.

I'm pretty sure that's part of the law.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Because "we will only put out fires for those who pay us" is extortion,

> They're volunteers.  How is it any more extortion than "I will only program 
> computers for people who pay me"?

  Compare: "I will put out fires only for white people."

  Legal?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Compare: "I will put out fires only for white people."
>   Legal?

For free, mind.  As I said, refusing to volunteer to risk your life for 
people who haven't donated was quite probably legal. I never heard of them 
getting sued by the guy whose house burned down, for example.  (And it was a 
big expensive mansion, owned by someone who should have been able to cough 
up $10 but preferred to think he could freeload off his neighbors.)

"White" is a protected class here.

Compare: "I will only put out fires for lawyers."  Legal? You betcha.

-- 
   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

On 24-8-2009 18:38, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Because "we will only put out fires for those who pay us" is extortion,
> 
> They're volunteers.  How is it any more extortion than "I will only 
> program computers for people who pay me"?
> 
>>   Also, people often die in fires. If someone dies in a fire they refused
>> to put out because they got no money from them, they let someone die on
>> purpose even though they could help.
> 
> Yes. I don't think they went that far, altho I do remember hearing a 
> story of them showing up at some rich cheap-bastard's house just to 
> watch it burn.
> The donation request was something like $10/year or so, so it wasn't 
> like a lot of money. But if you were too cheap even for that...

You probably have no idea how utterly absurd this kind of logic sounds 
to me (and probably most other Europeans).
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 
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 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 
more and more here, mostly under influence of managers that were trained 
by or according to the ideology of selfish bastards from an unidentified 
country. Most doctors hate it but are forced to collaborate with the 
enemy because if they don't even more people will remain untreated.

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. Also if the damage to society is larger if you are 
not insured than if you are (typical example: health care. Somebody that 
looses a leg because he is not treated in time often costs more than 
someone who is treated. Both directly and indirectly because of the 
things he can not do anymore that benefit society) So if you own a house 
you have to insure that against fire damage. If you have work, you have 
to insure against loss of your job and against physical harm that may 
lead to loss of your job. Also everybody should have an insurance to 
damage inflicted on others Etc. 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.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/24/09 14:19, Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> So anyone who is capable of saving your property should be required to
>> voluntarily do so?
>
> No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of
> a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be
> reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on
> duty'.

	I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

>> Should the construction worker be required to rebuild your house for
>> free if it burns down in spite of the fire fighter's best efforts?
>
> No. But a volunteer member of FEMA or the Red Cross or Habitat for
> Humanity or whatever should be reasonably expected to rebuild the house
> when there is need and they have the resources and capability do so and
> can see the need.

	I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

>> How about fires in different towns? Should they be required to drive
>> 30 miles to go fight fires elsewhere?
>
> If they've volunteered to do so.

	I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

	And they didn't volunteer to do so - that's Darren's point. They 
volunteered to put out fires in *this* city. And they volunteered to put 
out fires for the houses that opted in, not for all the houses in the city.

> The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do,
> to bear that responsibility. If you volunteer to join the army, you

	I'm not sure you understand what "volunteer" means.

	I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm also seriously. Using the word 
"obligation" and "volunteer" in the same sentence blows my mind.

> don't get to disregard this or that order because you're a volunteer. In
> for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.

	That's because the army has rules, not because they're volunteering.

-- 
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.


-- 
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:05:07 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Paid by taxes, even the volunteers. It is extremely hard to imagine a
> situation where they are paid in such a perverse way. 

It's pretty common in small towns in the US that the volunteer fire 
department isn't paid at all - they have to raise funds to buy equipment.

> That simply does
> not fit with the image of a fire department. It is just as inconceivable
> as a doctor refusing to treat a patient untill he pays money was a few
> years ago.

Or indeed as is current in parts of the US.  Yes, there are places where 
if you can't pay, you don't get health care.  Hence the current national 
debate over here about this.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm also seriously. Using the 
> word "obligation" and "volunteer" in the same sentence blows my mind.

I still giggle whenever I remember Bruce Willis in 12 Monkeys being assigned 
"Volunteer duty."

>> don't get to disregard this or that order because you're a volunteer. In
>> for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.
> 
>     That's because the army has rules, not because they're volunteering.

Yes. "Volunteering" for the army means accepting employment with them of 
your own free will. But it's still employment with contracts and such.

-- 
   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