Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've driven stretches of Wyoming that are like that

I understand that when the University of Nebraska has a football game, the 
population in the football stadium is bigger than any other city in the 
state. :-)

-- 
   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 21:42:55 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I've driven stretches of Wyoming that are like that
> 
> I understand that when the University of Nebraska has a football game,
> the population in the football stadium is bigger than any other city in
> the state. :-)

I dunno, Omaha and Lincoln both are pretty decent sizes... :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/24/09 22:52, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

	Oh, and with ambulances as well. But are rescue services voluntary and 
wholly funded by voluntary donations?

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Indeed, we have to pass special laws to 
> keep you from being sued in the event that you try to help and fail.

  No good deed goes unpunished.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Oh, and with ambulances as well. But are rescue services voluntary 
> and wholly funded by voluntary donations?

It depends where.

-- 
   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 2:37, Darren New wrote:
> 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 the case of a fireman 'legally required to' is probably close to the 
truth. I think not performing your task as a volunteer in such an 
important job will get you prosecuted here. You'll be lucky if they will 
kick you out of the squad only. Same for a volunteer doctor helping at a 
sport event.

Recently I read something about one of our yearly art and performance 
festivals going to NY for once because of 400 years of relations oslt. 
Most of the festival is run by volunteers here. In NY it is impossible 
to get volunteers, they have to pay everybody, even the old guy pouring 
coffee. Seems like volunteers are different in more than one respect on 
both sides of the atlantic.

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

Apparently not for an American, I think any fireman here, volunteer or 
paid would be totally shocked if you suggest that to him or her.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-8-2009 6:24, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Sure, but sometimes that comes as a shock. That takes time to 
internalize and a few times asking for confirmation to get to the point 
that 'yes, they really mean this'.

Sort of along the same line: I saw same images from Katrina today. 
Apparently the city council of New Orleans neglected looking after it's 
levee's. That also took some time before I could really believe that. 
How can something be of lesser importance than preventing 'natural' 
disasters? Well, getting re-elected probably is. Why you would re-elect 
someone who is knowingly taking risks with your life is beyond me. 
Though adequate control of the media might do the job. Time to quote a 
French king: Après moi, le déluge.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-8-2009 1:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Every house here belongs to a town (or village if you like). Don't tell 
me even that is different in the US.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-8-2009 4:52, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
> 
True but irrelevant, I think.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-8-2009 4:56, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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 ;-)

afraid so.

>     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.

afraid so.

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

afraid so.

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

That is why health insurance is obligatory here. You can choose your 
insurer, you can choose at what level you will be insured starting from 
a legal minimum. Which means that I am probably insured for the cost of 
a pregnancy even though I have a genetic disorder that prevents me from 
getting pregnant.

Post a reply to this message