|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 19:06:38
Message: <4a931cfe@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 19:11:51
Message: <4a931e37$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Cook
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 20:06:34
Message: <4a932b0a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 20:37:11
Message: <4a933237@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 21:28:24
Message: <4a933e38@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Cook
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 21:34:08
Message: <4a933f90$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 22:09:57
Message: <4a9347f5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 22:40:35
Message: <4a934f23$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national healthcare?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 22:40:57
Message: <4a934f39$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 24 Aug 2009 22:41:04
Message: <4a934f40$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/24/09 17:36, andrel 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 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.
No one is talking about breaking promises. They never promised to take
care of fires of non-payers.
In any case, most volunteering does not involve promises.
--
Feet Smell? Nose Run? Hey, you're upside down!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|