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

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         We're explicitly discussing something *not* paid for by taxes.

  It still sounds to me like illegal extortion.

  People don't put themselves into more or less danger depending on who
paid money for protection or not. You cannot justify such selection of
whose life you are going to save or not, based solely on whether that
person has paid you money or not.

  Moreover, deliberately not helping in an emergency situation where you
are capable and able to help is irresponsible and at least here illegal.
If you, for example, see a car accident and just ignore it, if you get
caught you will be fined or even jailed. You are refusing to help even
though you perhaps could. I think the legal term is negligence or something?

  Moreover, not putting out a fire even though you have the means to, and
instead letting it go, is extremely dangerous not only for the house in
question, but all the surrounding houses as well. And not only to the
houses but also the people. Someone can *die* because the firemen refused
to put out the fire. I'd say that constitutes some degree of manslaughter.

  So we have a protection racket, extortion, negligence and manslaughter.
Still not enough to make this practice highly illegal?

  How far it has to go before it becomes illegal?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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

On 24-8-2009 23:41, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

Then don't let people get into that position. This is something that tax 
is meant for. If you can not do that for political reasons, fire every 
politician that stands in your way (assuming they are insured against 
firing).

Post a reply to this message

On 24-8-2009 23:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Bloody stupid and bloody irresponsible of the town they are serving.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-8-2009 23:29, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.

I think he does, at least it matches with my definition of a volunteer.

> 
>>> 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.

I think he does.

>>> 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.

I think he does.

>     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 think he does.

>     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 think the essence of a volunteer is that he promises to do something, 
so there is an obligation. The concept of a volunteer that at any time 
can decide not to keep his promise because he only is a volunteer 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.
>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         We're explicitly discussing something *not* paid for by taxes.
>   It still sounds to me like illegal extortion.

Actually, the story goes that they were offered money, and they said "too 
late." So no, it wouldn't be extortion. Something else, perhaps, but not 
extortion.

>   People don't put themselves into more or less danger depending on who
> paid money for protection or not. You cannot justify such selection of
> whose life you are going to save or not, based solely on whether that
> person has paid you money or not.

Who said anything about not saving lives?  They just declined to put out the 
fire in his house.

>   Moreover, deliberately not helping in an emergency situation where you
> are capable and able to help is irresponsible and at least here illegal.
> If you, for example, see a car accident and just ignore it, if you get
> caught you will be fined or even jailed. You are refusing to help even
> though you perhaps could. I think the legal term is negligence or something?

Laws vary, certainly. Here there's no obligation to help, except in special 
circumstances. (For example, being a doctor carries certain responsibilities 
that don't hold for non-doctors.) Indeed, we have to pass special laws to 
keep you from being sued in the event that you try to help and fail.

There's no law that requires me to stop and help someone change a flat tire 
if they break down on the side of the road. Not even if I'm driving a 
tow-truck.

>   Moreover, not putting out a fire even though you have the means to, and
> instead letting it go, is extremely dangerous not only for the house in
> question, but all the surrounding houses as well. 

Yet, oddly enough, firemen sometimes also set fires to prevent fires from 
spreading. It's called a firebreak. Since neither of us were there, neither 
of us can guess what level of danger was present. Since I remember it being 
described as "a mansion", it's entirely possible (especially in that area) 
that it was in the middle of acres of open area. Plus, as I said, they were 
there and watching it in case it did indeed spread.

Note that these were the same group that put out a fire in the house I was 
living in and took great care, for example avoiding spraying on the stained 
glass window knowing it would break, etc.

>   So we have a protection racket, extortion, negligence and manslaughter.

Nobody died, so it wasn't manslaughter. They showed up to make sure it 
didn't spread, so it wasn't negligence.  It's a protection racket, but then 
all these sorts of things are "protection rackets" the way you define it 
(having you pay for protection and not protecting you if you don't pay). 
It's not extortion because they didn't force the homeowner to pay, and 
indeed that was the root of the problem.

Now, you can argue it was a bad thing to do, and I'd likely even agree that 
it could be. I probably wouldn't have sat around gloating myself. But I 
think you're reaching if you think it's illegal, especially in the USA.

> Still not enough to make this practice highly illegal?
>   How far it has to go before it becomes illegal?

I would say when you start getting paid as a full-time job by tax money, you 
probably shouldn't sit and gloat. :-) When someone passes a law requiring 
you to provide services regardless of whether they paid you, chances are 
good it's illegal not to.

-- 
   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

andrel wrote:
> Bloody stupid and bloody irresponsible of the town they are serving.

Not really. It works great when most everyone pays. Much less overhead.

Plus, most everyone pays when they know they might not get service if their 
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

andrel wrote:
> Then don't let people get into that position. This is something that tax 
> is meant for. 

I completely agree. What's your point?

-- 
   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 25-8-2009 0:50, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Then don't let people get into that position. This is something that 
>> tax is meant for. 
> 
> I completely agree. What's your point?

Why have it voluntarily? Doesn't make sense to me. I can only assume 
that someone wanted to virtually lower the tax burden for political 
reasons. If that was the case I find that bloody stupid and bloody 
irresponsible, but I may be repeating myself.

Post a reply to this message