andrel wrote:
> 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.

It generally worked fine. There weren't enough fires, I guess, to warrant a 
full-time fire fighting staff. (I think the town has a total of four police 
cars, IIRC?)

> I can only assume 
> that someone wanted to virtually lower the tax burden for political 
> reasons. 

You may be assuming there *was* a full-time fire brigade that was disbanded. 
I don't believe the area *ever* had a full-time fire brigade. Maybe since 
then, but not at the time.

-- 
   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 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:20:45 +0200, andrel wrote:

> 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.

This might come as a shock to you, but not everyone in the US lives in a 
"town".  When I first moved to Utah, I lived in an unincorporated suburb 
of Salt Lake City.  The county (in my case) provided those services, but 
in more rural parts of the country, county services may not be available.

You've not seen a rural area until you've been to Montana or Wyoming.  
Population density is incredibly low in both areas, outside of the major 
towns.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:36:16 +0200, andrel wrote:

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

Volunteer:  One who voluntarily offers his services in any capacity; one 
who of his own free will takes part in any enterprise.

Voluntarily:  Of one’s own free will or accord; without compulsion, 
constraint, or undue influence by others; freely, willingly.

Both definitions taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.

Now, if someone's not willing to do something for which they've not been 
compensated in some way, then you can't compel them do something that is 
*voluntary*.  If you compel them to do something, then it's not 
voluntary, *by definition*.

I'm not saying I disagree with your POV, BTW; I do think that people who 
have the ability to assist in a time of crisis should do so for the 
common good, *however* we are talking about volunteers here, so it's 
important to understand what exactly is meant by "volunteer" and 
"voluntary".  What you are talking about *isn't* volunteers, and *isn't* 
voluntary, because you are talking about compelling someone to do 
something *because* they have the skills.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm not saying I disagree with your POV, BTW; I do think that people who 
> have the ability to assist in a time of crisis should do so for the 
> common good, *however* we are talking about volunteers here, so it's 
> important to understand what exactly is meant by "volunteer" and 
> "voluntary".  What you are talking about *isn't* volunteers, and *isn't* 
> voluntary, because you are talking about compelling someone to do 
> something *because* they have the skills.

If someone volunteers to do a particular task, expecting them to then do 
that task is not an external compulsion; they made a promise *by 
volunteering* to do it, hence obligated themselves.  Of their own free 
will.  The fact that they have the skills for the task are secondary, 
and more related to why they volunteered in the first place.

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

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> If someone volunteers to do a particular task, expecting them to then do 
> that task is not an external compulsion; they made a promise *by 
> volunteering* to do it, hence obligated themselves.

Yes. Distinguish between morally "obligating himself" and "legally required 
to." Even if what they did was despicable, I'd find it hard to argue that it 
was illegal.

In addition, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say "we'll put out fires for 
anyone who donates," which is what happened in practice.

-- 
   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 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:06:30 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not saying I disagree with your POV, BTW; I do think that people
>> who have the ability to assist in a time of crisis should do so for the
>> common good, *however* we are talking about volunteers here, so it's
>> important to understand what exactly is meant by "volunteer" and
>> "voluntary".  What you are talking about *isn't* volunteers, and
>> *isn't* voluntary, because you are talking about compelling someone to
>> do something *because* they have the skills.
> 
> If someone volunteers to do a particular task, expecting them to then do
> that task is not an external compulsion; they made a promise *by
> volunteering* to do it, hence obligated themselves.  Of their own free
> will.  The fact that they have the skills for the task are secondary,
> and more related to why they volunteered in the first place.

"obligated" and "legally required to" are two different things, as Darren 
said.  Also, if one volunteers to do something for those who pay to cover 
it, that also changes the "obligation", no?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> "obligated" and "legally required to" are two different things, as Darren 
> said.  Also, if one volunteers to do something for those who pay to cover 
> it, that also changes the "obligation", no?

Yeah, but something like firefighting is really a communal resource.  At 
the very least, if I'm a rich guy who pays my share, and the 
firefighters let the house of the rich guy who lives next to me burn 
down because he doesn't even though they could have stopped it, that 
sends my own property value down and punishes me.

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

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Yeah, but something like firefighting is really a communal resource. 

Only because fire spreads, really. Like heath, vaccinations, etc. If you 
prevent it from spreading without preventing it from burning down the 
deadbeat's house, that's still a service to those who *did* pay.

-- 
   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 08/24/09 20:34, Tim Cook wrote:
> Yeah, but something like firefighting is really a communal resource. At
> the very least, if I'm a rich guy who pays my share, and the
> firefighters let the house of the rich guy who lives next to me burn
> down because he doesn't even though they could have stopped it, that
> sends my own property value down and punishes me.

	Yes, but since when is a volunteer firefighter's job to worry about 
property values?

	If it bothers you so much, feel free to cover your neighbors as well.

-- 
Feet Smell?  Nose Run?  Hey, you're upside down!

Post a reply to this message

On 08/24/09 19:06, Tim Cook wrote:
> If someone volunteers to do a particular task, expecting them to then do
> that task is not an external compulsion; they made a promise *by
> volunteering* to do it, hence obligated themselves. Of their own free

	Yes, but their promise was *not* to take care of any fire that breaks 
out, but to take care of only certain fires. No promise is being broken.

	You seem to have the idea that just because they put out fires, they're 
obligated to put out more fires than what they claimed to. 	

	If I'm a volunteer fireperson, and I say that I'll only operate from 
3pm to midnight, I'm not breaking any promises for not acting in other 
hours. And I've made clear what I'm volunteering for.

-- 
Feet Smell?  Nose Run?  Hey, you're upside down!

Post a reply to this message