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

On 08/24/09 17:11, andrel wrote:
>> It's not the regular fire department. It's a volunteer one.
>
> We do have them too, but equipment etc. is paid from taxes.

	I'm guessing that's not the case with what Darren was talking about.


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

Post a reply to this message

On 08/24/09 17:00, 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.

	That would depend on the laws of whatever country you're in. However, 
if that was such a law, then it means that some areas will simply not be 
covered by non-tax paid fire services, and lead to an overall worse 
situation.

>    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.

	At least over here, insurance companies do it all the time. And that's 
not even a volunteer service.

>    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?

	Are you talking about ordinary citizens?

	Here, apparently, actual doctors who happened upon an accident have 
been sued when they tried to help (no doubt a rare problem). I'm pretty 
sure there's no law requiring ordinary citizens to help.

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

	Well, perhaps having volunteer fire departments should be made illegal, 
and a law should be mandated that *only* full time, tax paid fire 
departments should exist. The conditions you're imposing will be pretty 
good at discouraging them from starting up to begin with. If they're 
duty bound to save all houses, few would pay and it would simply be 
unsustainable.

	It'd be nice if they'd put out the fire and then the owner will be 
obligated to pay after the fact, but I doubt the legal system will allow 
that - again being voluntary.


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

Post a reply to this message

On 08/24/09 17:20, andrel wrote:
>> 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.

	What Jim said. Towns over here (particularly in the part of the country 
where he lives) are far flung, with some having only, you know, 300 
people in them. And they're not rare. I'd bet a *much* higher percentage 
of the US lives in such places compared to where you're at.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 08/24/09 18:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

	I was on an interstate in Montana once (I-15? Will have to look it up). 
Going at 90 mph and I'd go many miles at a time without seeing a single 
car in either direction.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 08/24/09 17:55, andrel wrote:
> 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

	More like financial reasons ;-)

	You do realize that it's quite possible for a small town to prefer not 
to pay taxes for a fire department in order to save a few bucks, don't 
you? You don't need bad politicians for it to happen.

	It may be stupid, but it's quite possible.

	Just as it's stupid for people not to buy health insurance when they 
can afford it. Yet, many intelligent people don't.

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

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     No one is talking about breaking promises. They never promised to 
> take care of fires of non-payers.

Well, I don't know if they did or not.  I think it's safe to say we can't 
assume they did, tho.

>     In any case, most volunteering does not involve promises.

It can, sure. But the calls that it should be illegal because it's negligent 
and extortionist and such is certainly excessive I think.

-- 
   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 wrote:
>     It'd be nice if they'd put out the fire and then the owner will be 
> obligated to pay after the fact, but I doubt the legal system will allow 
> that - again being voluntary.

I believe that happens for some services here. For example, if you get lost 
while hiking, you wind up paying for the helicopter that comes to rescue you.

-- 
   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 21:34:04 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> Yeah, but something like firefighting is really a communal resource.

That's one view, sure.  Another view is that personal property isn't 
important, nor is personal wealth.

You're continuing to look at this through the lens of your own 
experiences, but your experiences aren't the only experiences of people 
in this world.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:53:31 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/24/09 18:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 	I was on an interstate in Montana once (I-15? Will have to look 
it up).
> Going at 90 mph and I'd go many miles at a time without seeing a single
> car in either direction.

I've driven stretches of Wyoming that are like that - and have been to 
one part of Montana considered to be one of the two major population 
centers (Billings) there.  It really wasn't all that populated, even in 
town, population density seemed extremely low.

Jim

Post a reply to this message