Politics, Cranick, and the Firefighters Who Let His House Burn

[Shot From Guns]

Gene Cranick lives in rural Tennessee--Obion County. The people who live there have voted against an increase in taxes that would give them a fire department. Instead, they each pay a yearly fee of $75 to a nearby city in order to have access to the services of their fire department. Cranick declined to pay the fee; previously, a fire at his house was extinguished by the fire department depite his not paying. However, this time, they let the house burn.

The fire fighters did respond to keep an eye on the house of a neighbor, who had paid the fee, when it seemed that the flames might threaten it, and took action at that point. There are no fire hydrants; the trucks must bring their own water to any fire, making it a limited resource (i.e., using it on the property of someone who hasn't paid the fee means it will not be available to use for someone who has). None of Cranick's family was in danger; they all made it out safely.

There are mechanism in place to remind people who have not paid their annual fee (IIRC, calls and letters). Initially, Cranick made the statement, "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." He now claims that he simply forgot to pay the fee.

In this Pit thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=580852), we have people making conflicting claims about how people at various parts of the political spectrum are reacting to this incident. I figured I'd see where people actually fall, mainly out of curiosity.

Please answer based on how you personally identify on the political spectrum. If you find that your beliefs vary toward both ends, you may wish to consider selecting "conservative" if you mainly vote for Republican candidates and "liberal" if you mainly vote for Democratic candidates (assuming you're an American, of course).

[Bosstone]

I voted before I read your last paragraph, in which case you can shift one vote for 'moderate, best choice' to 'liberal, best choice'.

[mlees]

what if you were registered as a R and voted for Obama? Moderate?

[Rand Rover]

1. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal and haven't ever voted--i selected "conservative" for this poll.

2. I selected the first option, but I wanna quibble with the wording. All I think is that what the firefighters did (and the overall result in general) was not "morally wrong" or otherwise bad in some cosmic sense. They could have put the fire out or not; they chose not, and I think that's OK.

[Chopper9760]

Conservative; I think the firefighters made the best choice they could.
I'm a Libertarian who ends up voting Republican most of the time.

Ideally we'd never let anyone's house burn but fire departments are a service like anything else and they must be funded.

As rural homeowners we have the option of paying $100 per year and be opted into the local volunteer fire department's district. We're far enough away and difficult to find so we opt out.

It's a calculated risk and I don't expect the fire department to come save my house despite our non-payment.

[Rand Rover]

Chopper, just curious--do you have a loan on the house or homeowner's insurance (without a fire exclusion)? I would think either of those would require you to pay the $100 (and would probably have some procedure to make sure it got paid, as with property taxes). Just to be clear, I'm just curious how this works, I'm not trying to imply anything negative.

[Shot From Guns]

I voted before I read your last paragraph, in which case you can shift one vote for 'moderate, best choice' to 'liberal, best choice'.

The last paragraph is in no way intended to be a strict guideline--it's intended to help people who'd say something like, "Well, I'm a libertarian who's 'conservative' on economic issues but 'liberal' on social ones: which should I pick?"

what if you were registered as a R and voted for Obama? Moderate?

How would you describe yourself?

I [...] haven't ever voted

Interesting. I'm not sure I knew that.

I selected the first option, but I wanna quibble with the wording. All I think is that what the firefighters did (and the overall result in general) was not "morally wrong" or otherwise bad in some cosmic sense. They could have put the fire out or not; they chose not, and I think that's OK.

In which case, I'd say you do think they make the best choice they could, simply by making a choice. It doesn't make you identical to everyone else who selected the same option for any point on the political spectrum, but it's not meant to.

[Chopper9760]

Chopper, just curious--do you have a loan on the house or homeowner's insurance (without a fire exclusion)? I would think either of those would require you to pay the $100 (and would probably have some procedure to make sure it got paid, as with property taxes). Just to be clear, I'm just curious how this works, I'm not trying to imply anything negative.

House is paid off - yay! We have homeowner's insurance and it covers fire...AFIK. *shifty eyes* I don't think there's a caveat about opting into the fire district but that would make sense.

Wow, I should really check that policy, huh? :eek: And there I was busting Cranick's chops about personal responsibility, balls!

[Anaamika]

I lean liberal and I thought the firefighters did the absolute best they could. They were between a rock and a hard place! And I hope people read the thread before they respond.

1. County votes not to have any fire protection through taxes because OMG TAXES.
2. County agrees to have people pay the FD $75 for fire protection.
3. Mr. Crannick does not pay. His house lights up.
4. FD comes, puts it out.
5. Time passes. Mr. Crannick does not pay. His house lights up.
6. FD comes. Makes sure no lives are in danger. Does not put house out.
7. CONTROVERSY.

It is clear to me that Crannick thought he could continue living off his neighbor's dime. This is what this comes down to. Crannick thought his neighbors would pay the fee and thus he was exempt. That he was speshul.

He deserved what he got.

[Digital Stimulus]

This is such a weird situation. I totally get the firefighters' actions and decision, I totally understand the community agreement to have the option of not paying (rather than making it a tax), and I totally understand the various [dis-]incentives, motivations, choices made, etc. Objectively speaking, things went exactly as they should have.

Yet, I still answered "should've saved the house anyway". Subjectively, if I was one of the firefighters, I couldn't just stand there and watch the house burn. The very idea would be anathema, and I'd find inaction impossible.

[Shot From Guns]

Digital Stimulus:

1.) You would have saved the house anyway, or you think the firefighters should have?

2.) Imagine you are one of the firefighters. You decide to put out Cranick's fire, even though he didn't pay. The fire rages out of control and jumps to the house of his neighbor, who has been paying his fees. You are now out of water. Either both houses burn, or Cranick's is saved while the house of the person who paid burns. Do you still think you made the right choice?

3.) Imagine you are one of the firefighters. You decide to put out Cranick's fire. He is further supported in his belief that he will receive services he doesn't pay for. His neighbors have further evidence that they don't need to pay, either. You lose more and more fees. The department decides it can no longer afford to provide services to Obion County. Any fire that starts there from that point forward will have no attention at all. Do you still think you made the right choice?

[RTFirefly]

As I understand it, Cranick offered to pay the firefighters to put out the fire.

The best option was for the firefighters to take him up on this offer. Why not? They were there, and he was apparently willing to pay their actual costs. If this is so, what principle was involved in their refusing to do so under these circumstances?

Because that's how insurance works, you know. If I buy auto insurance and get in a fenderbender, I'll only pay the deductible rather than the full cost, because I'm insured. But if I'm not insured, I can still pay the full cost of having my car repaired; I don't lose the car simply because I'm uninsured.

So if it cost the fire department $2000 to put out the fire, they should have done so, and billed him for $2000. Having to pay $2000 rather than $75 was the appropriate penalty for his failure to buy insurance. Having his house burn down while the firefighters twiddled their thumbs wasn't.

[C3]

I'm a liberal.

I don't think the firefighters did the wrong thing. They and the homeowner were all aware of the rules, everyone had a chance to follow the rules.

I do think this is a ridiculously stupid way to run the fire department and this case is a really good illustration of why. The lesson that should be learned here is not that the firefighters should have put out the fire, no matter what, but that this is what happens when you have individual households pay for fire protection instead of contributing to it through property taxes or other means.

[Crown Prince of Irony]

This is such a weird situation. I totally get the firefighters' actions and decision, I totally understand the community agreement to have the option of not paying (rather than making it a tax), and I totally understand the various [dis-]incentives, motivations, choices made, etc. Objectively speaking, things went exactly as they should have.

Yet, I still answered "should've saved the house anyway". Subjectively, if I was one of the firefighters, I couldn't just stand there and watch the house burn. The very idea would be anathema, and I'd find inaction impossible.

This was exactly my thinking, and my answer. While I understand the economics of the situation, I know several firefighters, and I doubt any of them could stand by and see the house burn.


I'm not too familiar with the background, but could the fire district not sue him for services rendered? The cost of a fire response has to run in the thousands of dollars - wouldn't this have set the homeowner straight the first time around?

[gonzomax]

Don't people who are dedicated firefighters, who believe they are doing good work, diminish themselves when they sit by and watch a fire burn down a house when they could have stopped it?

[Sundrop]

I too am a libertarian, I marked 'conservative' for purposes of this poll. I think the firefighters did the right thing.

Cranick understood the situation. He took a risk and it did not pay off. If only more mooches would have to suffer the consequences of their attempts to sponge off their neighbors, we'd be a great deal better off.

[mlees]

what if you were registered as a R and voted for Obama? Moderate?

How would you describe yourself?

Self appraisal is fraught with pitfalls. generally social liberal, fiscal conservative.

I used the "moderate: the FF did the best they could". Hope you don't mind.

[RTFirefly]

2.) Imagine you are one of the firefighters. You decide to put out Cranick's fire, even though he didn't pay. The fire rages out of control and jumps to the house of his neighbor, who has been paying his fees. You are now out of water. Either both houses burn, or Cranick's is saved while the house of the person who paid burns. Do you still think you made the right choice?Sounds like an argument for containing the spread of the fire and only then putting out the fire in the burning house, regardless of whether everyone's paid or not.

Seriously, what would they do if Cranick had paid up and they exhausted their water trying to put out his fire, but it still managed to jump to the neighbor's house and they had no water left to put it out? If this is a plausible scenario, then they didn't have the ability to provide the service they were charging for.

[Contrapuntal]

Don't people who are dedicated firefighters, who believe they are doing good work, diminish themselves when they sit by and watch a fire burn down a house when they could have stopped it?No, because if people see that they don't need to pay the fee up front, then eventually the firefighters will be unfunded.


As I understand it, Cranick offered to pay the firefighters to put out the fire.

The best option was for the firefighters to take him up on this offer. Why not? They were there, and he was apparently willing to pay their actual costs. If this is so, what principle was involved in their refusing to do so under these circumstances?
That wasn't an option. The firefighters are neither set up to accept promises to pay, nor set up to bill welshers. As an imaginary option it might fly, but there was simply no way to make this work.

Because that's how insurance works, you know. If I buy auto insurance and get in a fenderbender, I'll only pay the deductible rather than the full cost, because I'm insured. But if I'm not insured, I can still pay the full cost of having my car repaired; I don't lose the car simply because I'm uninsured.And he can still pay the full cost of rebuilding his home.

Suppose you were to injure someone resulting in astronomical medical bills that you were unable to pay. Should you have the right to demand that an insurance company retroactively insure you?

So if it cost the fire department $2000 to put out the fire, they should have done so, and billed him for $2000. Having to pay $2000 rather than $75 was the appropriate penalty for his failure to buy insurance. Having his house burn down while the firefighters twiddled their thumbs wasn't. What if he doesn't pay?

And they weren't twiddling their thumbs. They were protecting the property of subscribers who weren't freeloading off of their neighbors.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

"Pay" the firefighters? The guy standing there at the firetruck is not likely to be someone who is authorized to take money for the department. Government agencies, as well as pretty much every company ever, have to be very careful about how they get their money, who they get it from, et cetera. Does Joe the Firefighter know how much it's going to cost to get this place put out? Sure, they could invoice him when they have an answer, but does anyone really believe that Cranick would pay up while his house isn't actually on fire? He sort of has a history of not doing so.

The firefighters were right. Now I myself personally would have tried to do the best I could with Cranick's garden hose if I could get close enough to the blaze without catching myself on fire, but while I understand the other point of view I would rather the fire department served the people who paid instead of losing so much money they had to stop supporting the rural homesteads.

And if it had been the first time for Cranick or he'd just moved in or something, then I might have some quibbles and caveats, but HE DID THIS BEFORE. He got his chance. He blew it. He had every opportunity to do something about it and he never did. You fails to pay your money, you takes your chances. I have sympathy. I'd take up a donation to send his family clothes, food, whatever supplies they needed, even help them demolish the remains of their house and help them work on a new one. That would all be way more than $75 worth of my time. But he doesn't get to not pay and get the benefits anyway.

[lindsaybluth]

Garden variety Libertarian. I voted for Obama. I've voted previously for both Democrats and Republicans.

I think they had every right to let the house burn down because it wasn't the first time (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janine-r-wedel/emshadow-eliteem-the-smal_b_753796.html) the moron had started a fire and not paid the fee. Last paragraph has relevant details, the rest of the post is worthless. He had a chimney fire 3 years ago, also conveniently "forgot" the fee, they put the fire out and let him pay for it - not pay for the true cost of putting out the fire, oh no, for the $75 annual fee. :rolleyes: Sounds like the guy got a pretty good deal, huh?

How, after that is his behavior excusable a second time? You don't see uninsured drivers wailing for Geico to replace their totaled car after an accident, do you? You take the risk, you deserve the outcome.

Life and death wasn't at stake here; it was the guy's house with no people trapped inside of it.

[Chronos]

I'm a liberal, and I marked that the firefighters made the best decision they could have, but I also think that the county made an absolutely terrible decision that led to that. If things were set up sanely, then the firefighting fee would be a mandatory tax, and the firefighters would be required to fight the fire.

Quoth RTFirefly:As I understand it, Cranick offered to pay the firefighters to put out the fire.

The best option was for the firefighters to take him up on this offer. Why not? They were there, and he was apparently willing to pay their actual costs. If this is so, what principle was involved in their refusing to do so under these circumstances?If he didn't have cash on hand and on the spot, then for all practical purposes, he didn't offer to pay. When the firefighters accept offers like this, more often than not, the money never materializes, and even when it does, it takes many years and much work to get it.

[MsWhatsit]

I'm a liberal, and I marked that the firefighters made the best decision they could have, but I also think that the county made an absolutely terrible decision that led to that. If things were set up sanely, then the firefighting fee would be a mandatory tax, and the firefighters would be required to fight the fire.

This is my feeling as well. I grew up in a rural area that was covered by a local volunteer fire department. This was not an opt-in situation; everyone paid for it via taxes. Having a situation where certain houses have fire coverage and others don't seems completely insane to me.

[hogarth]

So if it cost the fire department $2000 to put out the fire, they should have done so, and billed him for $2000.
I'm curious -- the first time the fire department put out a fire for him and he paid after the fact, did he pay the full cost or just the $75?

[Contrapuntal]

So if it cost the fire department $2000 to put out the fire, they should have done so, and billed him for $2000.
I'm curious -- the first time the fire department put out a fire for him and he paid after the fact, did he pay the full cost or just the $75?The latter.

[Lightnin']

I'm a Liberal, and I think the Fire Department did the best they had to do. I really think the best answer would've been to work to put the fire out and then bill Cranick... but, of course, there's no guarantee that Cranick would pay that bill, either, so it's unlikely that they would've gotten recompensed for the considerable effort it would've cost. So, no, I don't know what the hell should've been done.

However, I do believe that this situation highlights one of the failures of the Libertarian philosophy. If Libertarians got their way, I'd be willing to bet we'd see this situation, and many others like it, all the time.

[Tixenfleaz]

Subjectively, if I was one of the firefighters, I couldn't just stand there and watch the house burn. The very idea would be anathema, and I'd find inaction impossible.

I've been a paid FF for over twenty years and I can't imagine standing by and watching a home burn while the owner pleads for me to put it out. If I did that I'd have to cover every mirror in my house. For all they knew, the guy might've been flat broke and was about to lose what little he had.

Kurt Vonnegut once said: ''I can think of no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man than a fire truck.'' Schmaltzy, sure, but true enough I think. These fellows seem to have lost the thread of that.

It's a crappy way to fund a Fire Department.

[Digital Stimulus]

1.) You would have saved the house anyway, or you think the firefighters should have?
Both. Although I understand why the firefighters did not and will not criticize their decision. Legitimate ambivalence -- not neutrality, not uncaring, but (literally) having conflicting feelings about something -- is weird, and not something I encounter often.
2.) Imagine you are one of the firefighters. You decide to put out Cranick's fire, even though he didn't pay. The fire rages out of control and jumps to the house of his neighbor, who has been paying his fees. You are now out of water. Either both houses burn, or Cranick's is saved while the house of the person who paid burns. Do you still think you made the right choice?
Yes, I'd still think I made the correct decision. Your hypothetical indicates that we, as firefighters, are terrible at our jobs.
3.) Imagine you are one of the firefighters. You decide to put out Cranick's fire. He is further supported in his belief that he will receive services he doesn't pay for. His neighbors have further evidence that they don't need to pay, either. You lose more and more fees. The department decides it can no longer afford to provide services to Obion County. Any fire that starts there from that point forward will have no attention at all. Do you still think you made the right choice?
Yes, because in my competing hypothetical, firefighting is a government provided service, funded via whatever method of billing is decided upon (usually a tax, I suppose). To me, this is a prime example of both community (same root as commune) and why government exists in the first place.

Again, objectively, I have to say that the community made a group decision to have things this way. Cranick, as an individual, has now had to eat the fruit of that group decision.

[Contrapuntal]

Again, objectively, I have to say that the community made a group decision to have things this way. Cranick, as an individual, has now had to eat the fruit of that group decision.What? It's the community's fault that he didn't pay and therefore have fire protection? Good Lord!

[DianaG]

I'm flamingly liberal, and I think this is a crappy way to run a county, but seriously folks, we're talking about $75 a year, and an asshole who'd already screwed the fire department over once. Fuck him.

I've absolutely no doubt that the firefighters on the scene would have sprang into action if there were anyone inside the house, but they're under no obligation to risk their lives to protect property he CHOSE not to protect himself.

[Digital Stimulus]

Again, objectively, I have to say that the community made a group decision to have things this way. Cranick, as an individual, has now had to eat the fruit of that group decision.What? It's the community's fault that he didn't pay and therefore have fire protection? Good Lord!
You'll note that I didn't lay blame anywhere or on anyone; in fact, as I've said twice in two posts now, I'm (literally) ambivalent about the situation. So now it's three for three.

The laying blame and corresponding outrage...Good Lord! That's all in your head...

[Barkis is Willin']

However, I do believe that this situation highlights one of the failures of the Libertarian philosophy. If Libertarians got their way, I'd be willing to bet we'd see this situation, and many others like it, all the time.

Until people get the picture that freeloading does not pay off. I'm not libertarian, I do lean conservative, and I think the fire dept made the right call. They gave this guy a pass once before, so he can't even argue ignorance for not paying the bill. He tried to beat the system.

[Contrapuntal]

You'll note that I didn't lay blame anywhere or on anyone; in fact, as I've said twice in two posts now, I'm (literally) ambivalent about the situation. So now it's three for three.

The laying blame and corresponding outrage...Good Lord! That's all in your head...Outrage? You must be thinking of someone else.

You are absolutely blaming a bad outcome on the decision made by the community. Unless your reference to eating fruit was literal and involved some aspect of the story heretofore unheard. Or unless you don't consider the loss of the home to be a bad outcome. Which is it?

[Bosstone]

The decision by the community was a bad one in that it allowed people to opt out. When it's something like a fire that can affect property or lives other than the insured's, opting out is really not an option. It's why car insurance is mandatory: you can hurt others on the road, not just yourself.

[Digital Stimulus]

You'll note that I didn't lay blame anywhere or on anyone; in fact, as I've said twice in two posts now, I'm (literally) ambivalent about the situation. So now it's three for three.

The laying blame and corresponding outrage...Good Lord! That's all in your head...Outrage? You must be thinking of someone else.
Sorry, perhaps I misread your "What?" and "Good Lord!" inclusions incorrectly. To me, they indicated outrage, albeit of a minor variety. You choose an appropriate descriptor and I'll accept it.
You are absolutely blaming a bad outcome on the decision made by the community. Unless your reference to eating fruit was literal and involved some aspect of the story heretofore unheard. Or unless you don't consider the loss of the home to be a bad outcome. Which is it?
Hmmm. Are those the only options you can come up with? Really? Perhaps you should put just a teensy bit more thought into it.

It's OK, I'll wait...

[Rhythmdvl]

Subjectively, if I was one of the firefighters, I couldn't just stand there and watch the house burn. The very idea would be anathema, and I'd find inaction impossible.

I've been a paid FF for over twenty years and I can't imagine standing by and watching a home burn while the owner pleads for me to put it out. If I did that I'd have to cover every mirror in my house. For all they knew, the guy might've been flat broke and was about to lose what little he had.

Kurt Vonnegut once said: ''I can think of no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man than a fire truck.'' Schmaltzy, sure, but true enough I think. These fellows seem to have lost the thread of that.

It's a crappy way to fund a Fire Department.

This. Particularly the "cover every mirror" bit. I find their (in)action absolutely unconscionable.

[TriPolar]

Amazing that anybody thinks this was a proper way to act. This wasn't insurance. This was a public service. The government shouldn't be in the business of providing pay to play services, that's something for the private sector.

The worst part of this is that firefighters, or anyone else, would not take reasonable steps to put out a house fire, under any circumstance. All people are obligated to help in such a circumstance. Government officials even more so.

The only downside to the fire department exinquishing that blaze was a potential loss of fees in the future. That could have been corrected by implementing a new system of funding the fire department. What is the means of correcting for the loss of a home? I have never heard of another case where fire departments refused to assist in extinquishing a fire outside their district, or over a question of payment.

This incident brings dishonor to a noble profession. Firefighters are the people who run into burning buildings, not out of them. No fireman I know, volunteer or professional, would have stood by and watched a house burn down without attempting to help.

[Contrapuntal]

You choose an appropriate descriptor and I'll accept it.Bemused.

Hmmm. Are those the only options you can come up with? Really? Perhaps you should put just a teensy bit more thought into it.

It's OK, I'll wait...If you want me to understand you, you will have to tell me what you are talking about. If not, so be it.

[kunilou]

I lived not to far from Obion County for several years. That type of arrangement isn't uncommon in rural areas that depend either on volunteer fire departments, or contracting with the nearest city.

It's no secret that you have to sign up your home or business to be protected. It's no secret when the dues are paid, and it's no secret that fire departments have in the past (and will in the future) refused to serve those who don't pay.

Sure, it's a stupid way to do things, but Crannick knew what he had to do, and he didn't do it.

[Chronos]

Amazing that anybody thinks this was a proper way to act. This wasn't insurance. This was a public service. The government shouldn't be in the business of providing pay to play services, that's something for the private sector.The government shouldn't be in that business, but in this case, they were. Given that they were, I can't fault the firefighters for acknowledging that reality.

[Sampiro]

I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and I like to set fire to things, so I'm really lost.

I mentioned in the GD thread that the fact this was a mobile home makes a difference to me, though I've no idea if it did to the firemen. Mobile homes go up like dry kindling and are incredibly dangerous to firemen, and by the time they arrived it would probably have been too far gone to save anything but a few possessions and the cost of extinguishing the flames would probably have exceeded the value of the property, plus the poor animals were probably already dead. Again, this may not have/probably didn't have the slightest bearing on the firemen's decision, but I think it is a factor to be considered.

That said, I'm hoping that they use the outrage and profile of this to think up a better alternative- property taxes or penalties perhaps that insure automatic coverage.

[lindsaybluth]

The decision by the community was a bad one in that it allowed people to opt out. When it's something like a fire that can affect property or lives other than the insured's, opting out is really not an option. It's why car insurance is mandatory: you can hurt others on the road, not just yourself.

Right BUT, insurance damaging another's car is covered. If you have minimal coverage, if your shit is totaled, then you're screwed. The firefighters were protecting the other house and lawn from damage.


It's no secret that you have to sign up your home or business to be protected. It's no secret when the dues are paid, and it's no secret that fire departments have in the past (and will in the future) refused to serve those who don't pay.

Yup. It's also no secret that they will send you multiple pieces of mail reminding you that you haven't paid, that you've paid in the past and probably forgotten to this time, too.

ETA: I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and I like to set fire to things, so I'm really lost.

You're always the best :D

[Contrapuntal]

I mentioned in the GD thread that the fact this was a mobile home makes a difference to me, though I've no idea if it did to the firemen.Where did you see that it was a mobile home?

[ExTank]

Amazing that anybody thinks this was a proper way to act. This wasn't insurance. This was a public service. The government shouldn't be in the business of providing pay to play services, that's something for the private sector.

The residents of the city of S. Fulton pay for the CITY fire dept. with their municipal taxes; the non-S.Fulton residents of Obion County can get the CITY's service by paying a $75 fee, to cover the additional costs (fuel, maint. upkeep, etc.) of driving all over and covering the non-S. Fulton parts of Obion COUNTY.

Yes, it is a PUBLIC SERVICE. For the taxpaying citizens of the city of S. Fulton, as well as the non-S. Fulton residents of Obion county who pay the $75 fee.

Not for the entirety of Obion County.

The Obion County property taxes do not pay for a fire dept. specifically for the county residents. I'm willing to bet their property taxes are overall lower than those of S. Fulton, which may be one of the reasons people live outside the municipal limits of S. Fulton.

The GOVERNMENT of S. FULTON has NO OBLIGATION to pay for the emergency services for NON-S. FULTON residents who don't kick into the community kitty through taxes or fees.

Do you get it now?

[Digital Stimulus]

Bemused.
Bemused it is then. Rather a friendly tone, right?
If you want me to understand you, you will have to tell me what you are talking about. If not, so be it.
I'm quite sure I've been posting in a clear manner, but too often a short blurb of text just isn't enough to gain understanding. And that assumes I've adequately expressed myself, which is too often not the case. Since you ask -- rather than demand I choose from limited, ill-conceived options -- I'm more than willing to try again. Here's a review of what I said, snipped for conciseness:
...Objectively speaking, things went exactly as they should have.

Subjectively, if I was one of the firefighters, I couldn't just stand there and watch the house burn...
See what I did? I said that I take no issue with how things unfolded, but that if I were personally involved I would've done (or at least tried to do) things differently. Then I said:
Again, objectively, I have to say that the community made a group decision to have things this way. Cranick, as an individual, has now had to eat the fruit of that group decision.
It seems you reacted badly to my saying "Cranick had to eat the fruit". I could have just as easily said "Cranick had to suck it up" or "Cranick is, unfortunately for him, now paying more than the price of pay-for-service". Or perhaps you think that I was not assigning Cranick enough personal responsibility. No, he's part of the community, knew how things stood, and didn't subscribe to the service. Cranick could have paid but did not, his house burned, the firefighters watched. Objectively speaking, that's the system that was in place; the system worked as intended. It is what it is.

However, if I were one of the firefighters, I couldn't just stand there and watch. Thus, I'm conflicted -- ambivalent. (It seems I can't let a post go without saying that again.)

Is that clear enough? If not, could you tell me what you don't get, 'cuz I'm missing where you're confused...

[TriPolar]

The residents of the city of S. Fulton pay for the CITY fire dept. with their municipal taxes; the non-S.Fulton residents of Obion County can get the CITY's service by paying a $75 fee, to cover the additional costs (fuel, maint. upkeep, etc.) of driving all over and covering the non-S. Fulton parts of Obion COUNTY.

Yes, it is a PUBLIC SERVICE. For the taxpaying citizens of the city of S. Fulton, as well as the non-S. Fulton residents of Obion county who pay the $75 fee.

Not for the entirety of Obion County.

The Obion County property taxes do not pay for a fire dept. specifically for the county residents. I'm willing to bet their property taxes are overall lower than those of S. Fulton, which may be one of the reasons people live outside the municipal limits of S. Fulton.

The GOVERNMENT of S. FULTON has NO OBLIGATION to pay for the emergency services for NON-S. FULTON residents who don't kick into the community kitty through taxes or fees.

Do you get it now?

There is an obligation for all people to help in such circumstances. It is is inhuman for anyone to refuse help to someone in such need. It is ignoble for firefighters to do so. Fire departments frequently provide services to people outside of their tax base without regard to compensation.

The municipality can change their system of taxation if it is a problem. They can sue to recover costs if it is only a question of money.

What if there was a paperwork problem where a payment had been made but not recorded? What if you are behind in your taxes, should the police not bother to arrest someone who assaults you?

The government shouldn't be in that business, but in this case, they were. Given that they were, I can't fault the firefighters for acknowledging that reality.

I don't mean to blame firefighters who may have worried about their jobs (assuming they made certain no lives were at stake). But some chief should have had the integrity to say that the fire should be put out, and other means of dealing with tax problems should be pursued.

[Markxxx]

I think they did the best they could. To me, it's kind of like buying insurance AFTER you've been burglarized or after your house burned down

[Otara]

I was initially very firmly on the side of putting the fire out, but I didnt realise this was the _second_ fire that had occurred to the person in question.

I still think a fire is inherently a danger to the community in general and shouldnt be allowed to continue, but this was idiotic in the extreme. If you're going to play chicken you really need to understand when the other guy is in a tank and you're on a scooter.

Otara

[Sampiro]

I mentioned in the GD thread that the fact this was a mobile home makes a difference to me, though I've no idea if it did to the firemen.Where did you see that it was a mobile home?

Here (http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/104358504.html) among other places. You can also tell from the ruins (http://www.komonews.com/news/national/104437954.html).

[Otara]

Theres foundations and a hot water tank on the ground from what I can see?

Otara

[Sampiro]

Sorry- I meant to link directly to the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuHYPylxvv8&feature=player_embedded#!). You can tell from the shape and the ruins it was a mobile home. (When those things burn, there's nothing left.)

[ZipperJJ]

Thought you guys might be interested in the history of fire departments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_department):


Fire departments were again formed by insurance companies in the 18th and 19th century. Benjamin Franklin is seen as the father of the fire department in western culture[citation needed]. In 1736, he established the first fire insurance company named the Union Volunteer Fire Company in Philadelphia.[3] The city of Boston established the very first publicly funded paid fire department in America in 1679.[4]

In the late 19th century, the demand of central command for fire companies took place within cities because the fire companies would fight over fires or not put out an fire because the owners didn't have fire insurance.[citation needed] Insured properties had plaques with the insurance company's names affixed to their exterior called fire marks. This caused areas of a city to be badly damage by fires and caused many deaths. Cities started to form their own fire departments as a civil service to the public, forcing private fire companies to shut down, and merging their fire stations into the city's fire department.


Not saying that today's system isn't better than when it began, but if the people of Obion county voted for things to work this way, then that's how it's got to work. The system is not unheard of in other parts of the country (see post #5) and other people get by just fine.

[ExTank]

There is an obligation for all people to help in such circumstances. It is is inhuman for anyone to refuse help to someone in such need. It is ignoble for firefighters to do so.

They did help; they arrived to make sure no one was hurt, and provided fire suppression services to make sure the fire didn't spread to adjoining properties.


Fire departments frequently provide services to people outside of their tax base without regard to compensation.

Yes, they do, when there are mutual-aid agreements in place amongst various levels of governments. Obion county has opted OUT of every such attempted agreement between the county and the other 5 municipalities within Obion County which maintain fire departments.


The municipality can change their system of taxation if it is a problem. They can sue to recover costs if it is only a question of money.

A municipality's tax code has zero bearing on non-residents. The money to sue county residents has to come from somewhere; lawyers ain't cheap. And then you get into the whole county/municipal legal pissing contests. Even if the municipalities win against the county (no sure thing, unless the case makes it to a State court), collection is a whole 'nother matter.


What if there was a paperwork problem where a payment had been made but not recorded?

What if te fly had a .45? Would the froggy still fuck with him?


What if you are behind in your taxes, should the police not bother to arrest someone who assaults you?

This isn't a matter of taxes, or paying them, or not paying them; it's a bullshit strawman from a weak-ass, losing argument. The residents of Obion county have voted to NOT pay a 13 cent per year bump on their property taxes to get a county-level coverage for fire. It was given to them to understand that, failing that tax initiative, there would be NO county-wide fire-protection.

They were further given to understand that they could voluntarily, of their own free will, ELECT into one of serveral municipal plans, for a fee. These municipalities send bills, and multiple reminders, because THEY understand the importance of having a fire department, and want to give the county residents MULTIPLE chances to opt-in.

Cranick blew them off.

I have heard time-and-again about how evil the fire department and town of S. Fulton are with their NO-Tax-Tea-Bagging-Small-Government-Libertarian fee-for-service ways; the FACT of the matter is that it is Cranick who is the best example of this meme, and its patent weakness.

The residents of S. Fulton, and Union City (County Seat), recognized the benefits of a fire department, and ELECTED, via democratic process, to enact a tax in order to fund such a service for their own municipalities.

[Steophan]

There is an obligation for all people to help in such circumstances. It is is inhuman for anyone to refuse help to someone in such need. It is ignoble for firefighters to do so.
What a load of bollocks. Who are you to impose your morality on everyone else? People have certain legal obligations, which don't include putting out fires that have nothing to do with them. Any other obligations are personal choice.
The firefighters made the right choice in this case.

[Little Nemo]

The way I see it, Cranick had a choice about whether or not he wanted to have fire protection. He chose not to have it. As it turns out it was a bad decision.

Saving a person's life may be a moral obligation but, in my opinion, saving property doesn't rise to that level. I don't see why firemen in this situation are any more obligated to put out a fire then a car mechanic is obligated to fix my car for free.

[RTFirefly]

I'm a liberal, and I marked that the firefighters made the best decision they could have, but I also think that the county made an absolutely terrible decision that led to that. If things were set up sanely, then the firefighting fee would be a mandatory tax, and the firefighters would be required to fight the fire.

Quoth RTFirefly:As I understand it, Cranick offered to pay the firefighters to put out the fire.

The best option was for the firefighters to take him up on this offer. Why not? They were there, and he was apparently willing to pay their actual costs. If this is so, what principle was involved in their refusing to do so under these circumstances?If he didn't have cash on hand and on the spot, then for all practical purposes, he didn't offer to pay. When the firefighters accept offers like this, more often than not, the money never materializes, and even when it does, it takes many years and much work to get it.I didn't realize these crazy setups had a lot of history to them. There's actually a track record of instances where people have offered on the spot to pay for their fires to be put out, and failed to pay later on?

[RTFirefly]

The way I see it, Cranick had a choice about whether or not he wanted to have fire protection. He chose not to have it. As it turns out it was a bad decision.

Saving a person's life may be a moral obligation but, in my opinion, saving property doesn't rise to that level. I don't see why firemen in this situation are any more obligated to put out a fire then a car mechanic is obligated to fix my car for free.While Chronos claims that the fire department was unlikely to actually collect payment in a reasonable timeframe, the fact is that Cranick did offer to pay whatever they wanted.

Sounds like it's more like whether a car mechanic is obligated to fix your car if you bring your checkbook with you, but the mechanic doesn't have any way of knowing whether there's money in your account until after you pay and he tries to deposit your check.

[otternell]

I originally voted as moderate and that they should have saved the house. But more I read about the situation, and learned about the consistent refusal to pay the taxes that pay for this service, I have to change my mind. The firefighters did what they could.

I think someone else made this point elsewhere (maybe this thread, maybe a different one) but how is a firefighter any different than insurance. If you consistently choose to roll the dice, then eventually you'll pay the price. This guy paid a pretty high price and hopefully learned his lesson.

[Shot From Guns]

Everyone who says that the firefighters had an obligation to help:

1.) Are you currently moving to Obion County to start a volunteer fire department? If not, why not?

2.) When was the last time you provided what you did for a living to someone who skipped out on a bill? If someone stiffed you once, did you provide the goods or services to them a second time?

3.) Why do you think that a firefighter has an obligation to risk their life to save property, when the owner of the property has so little regard for them as to refuse to pay a minimal fee for said services, even when those services have been of concrete benefit to him in the past?

[Little Nemo]

While Chronos claims that the fire department was unlikely to actually collect payment in a reasonable timeframe, the fact is that Cranick did offer to pay whatever they wanted.

Sounds like it's more like whether a car mechanic is obligated to fix your car if you bring your checkbook with you, but the mechanic doesn't have any way of knowing whether there's money in your account until after you pay and he tries to deposit your check.Obviously we cannot say as a fact whether or not Cranick would have paid up as promised after the fire was put out. But this is a person who consistently refused to pay $75 for fire protection. It's not unreasonable to regard him as a risk for not paying a $3000 bill for fire protection.

[RTFirefly]

While Chronos claims that the fire department was unlikely to actually collect payment in a reasonable timeframe, the fact is that Cranick did offer to pay whatever they wanted.

Sounds like it's more like whether a car mechanic is obligated to fix your car if you bring your checkbook with you, but the mechanic doesn't have any way of knowing whether there's money in your account until after you pay and he tries to deposit your check.Obviously we cannot say as a fact whether or not Cranick would have paid up as promised after the fire was put out. But this is a person who consistently refused to pay $75 for fire protection. It's not unreasonable to regard him as a risk for not paying a $3000 bill for fire protection.Agreed. But the fire department would have had no trouble getting a judgment against Cranick from the appropriate court, maybe even slapping a lien on the house which would have still been intact.

[DianaG]

Well, that would fix everything. For Cranick, anyway.

Oh wait, I forgot... fuck him.

[RTFirefly]

Everyone who says that the firefighters had an obligation to help:

1.) Are you currently moving to Obion County to start a volunteer fire department? If not, why not? I'm also not traveling to New Zealand to give a sheep an IPod, which would make about as much sense.

2.) When was the last time you provided what you did for a living to someone who skipped out on a bill? If someone stiffed you once, did you provide the goods or services to them a second time? When was the last time that I argued with someone drawing analogies that were this far off the mark?

All too recently, I'm sure, but I'm going to have to try to break the habit.

3.) Why do you think that a firefighter has an obligation to risk their life to save property, when the owner of the property has so little regard for them as to refuse to pay a minimal fee for said services, even when those services have been of concrete benefit to him in the past?I don't believe a firefighter EVER has an obligation to risk his or her life in a fire, once it's been determined that no lives are at risk in the first place.

Not that that has anything to do with this discussion, of course.

[Barkis is Willin']

Obviously we cannot say as a fact whether or not Cranick would have paid up as promised after the fire was put out. But this is a person who consistently refused to pay $75 for fire protection. It's not unreasonable to regard him as a risk for not paying a $3000 bill for fire protection.Agreed. But the fire department would have had no trouble getting a judgment against Cranick from the appropriate court, maybe even slapping a lien on the house which would have still been intact.

So the FD would have to jump through legal hoops to collect? This is not all that dissimilar from a homeowners association. HOAs have to jump through legal hoops to collect from members who don't pay and I can assure you, my HOA spends a lot more money on their lawyer and collection agencies than they get from the fee/fine collections. But, they've got to do it or else nobody would pay. I guarantee you this FD would eventually run into people who will just never, ever pay up.

[BobLibDem]

I think the solution is pretty easy. The fire department should adopt this policy:

If you call us, we will come. If you paid your $75, you're all set. If not, we'll have you sign a paper authorizing us to bill you $2000.

The homeowner is a cheapskate, but the firemen should have put the fire out and found a way to bill him for actual costs.

[Peremensoe]

I still answered "should've saved the house anyway". Subjectively, if I was one of the firefighters, I couldn't just stand there and watch the house burn. The very idea would be anathema, and I'd find inaction impossible.

In the time of crisis, perform your calling.

[MegaBee]

I still answered "should've saved the house anyway". Subjectively, if I was one of the firefighters, I couldn't just stand there and watch the house burn. The very idea would be anathema, and I'd find inaction impossible.

In the time of crisis, perform your calling.

Taking into mind limited resources, right?

[lindsaybluth]

I didn't realize these crazy setups had a lot of history to them. There's actually a track record of instances where people have offered on the spot to pay for their fires to be put out, and failed to pay later on?

You're actually surprised by this in any way? Also, let's be clear that paying $75 isn't the same as paying for the *actual* cost to put it out, which should be paid by anyone sans insurance. It's also safe to say that a guy who doesn't buy fire insurance can't be counted on to foot the many thousand dollar bill to actually put his home out.

I think the solution is pretty easy. The fire department should adopt this policy:

If you call us, we will come. If you paid your $75, you're all set. If not, we'll have you sign a paper authorizing us to bill you $2000.

The homeowner is a cheapskate, but the firemen should have put the fire out and found a way to bill him for actual costs.

This is the most useless point yet. How are they to ensure they'll get the money? For all you know he's up to his ears in debt. History has shown people don't make good on paying back the FD sans insurance, why would this guy - with a HISTORY of his own! - pay up?

[crazyjoe]

I love all the people who are saying it's trivial to collect on a $2k debt. A few hours of a lawyer's time will cost you that, so now you have to try to collect 4K. From a guy who wouldn't pay $75 and probably doesn't have much in the way of valuable property to attach.

Seriously, collection agencies can ruin your credit, but they buy the debts for pennies on the dollar typically because they know they have a very low chance of covering their expenses. They're lucky if they get 50 cents on the dollar, and just doubling the bill isn't exactly legal or any more likely to get you back in the black.

[Shot From Guns]

I'm also not traveling to New Zealand to give a sheep an IPod, which would make about as much sense.

Do you think that someone else has an obligation to travel to New Zealand to give a sheep an iPod? If so, why would you even make that terrible analogy? The point is that you think that the firefighters had an obligation to try to save the house. (And if you don't think that, why are you responding to questions intended for those who do?)

When was the last time that I argued with someone drawing analogies that were this far off the mark?

It's not an analogy. It's exactly what happened. Cranick refused to pay the fee that would entitle him to the services of the fire department. There was a fire at his house. The firefighters put it out anyway, that time. He kept not paying the fee. There was another fire. This time, they didn't put it out.

It's exactly the same scenario; I'm just suggesting you apply it to yourself. Since you think it's so easy to tell others what they should have done in the same situation.

I don't believe a firefighter EVER has an obligation to risk his or her life in a fire, once it's been determined that no lives are at risk in the first place.

Not that that has anything to do with this discussion, of course.

Except that Cranick and his family were all safe. The only thing that was in danger was the house. A piece of property. So you just contradicted yourself again there.

[BobLibDem]

This is the most useless point yet. How are they to ensure they'll get the money? For all you know he's up to his ears in debt. History has shown people don't make good on paying back the FD sans insurance, why would this guy - with a HISTORY of his own! - pay up?

You slap a lien on his house if he doesn't pay up.

[DianaG]

Which will be a pain in his ass on the off chance he wants to sell. Otherwise, it's life as usual for him.

[Rhythmdvl]

Does this mean that anyone who cheated on their taxes, like, say, buying something over the Internet in a state that requires a disclosure yet fails to do so should be disqualified for receiving any state services?

So if any of you who saved a few dollars in sales tax (not hard to come up to $75 over the course of a year) get a call from your alarm company that the burglar alarm was tripped (note, you're safe), it's okay for the police to arrive, see the burglar carrying out your stuff, letting your pets out, etc., and only wave hi to him? Only do something if he gets too close to your neighbor's property?

There's a whole juicy range of services you'll be unable to avail yourself of, isn't there. And hey, fail to file some gambling income or overreported a deduction on your Fed return? Wow, look out!

[Brynda]

The poor fire department was so screwed in this situation. No way was that guy going to pay after the fact. They had no obligation to help him, and an obligation to those who do pay them to conserve resources.

[BobLibDem]

Which will be a pain in his ass on the off chance he wants to sell. Otherwise, it's life as usual for him.

Eventually the house will be sold, by him or his heirs. At that point, someone would have to make good on the $2000. In addition, they can garnish his wages and/or tax refunds to get it.

[DianaG]

Sure, they could, but why bother when the existence of the house is of no value to anyone other than Cranick?

[Barkis is Willin']

This is the most useless point yet. How are they to ensure they'll get the money? For all you know he's up to his ears in debt. History has shown people don't make good on paying back the FD sans insurance, why would this guy - with a HISTORY of his own! - pay up?

You slap a lien on his house if he doesn't pay up.

As I tried to convey in my anology with the HOA, just slapping a lien on his house is easier than it sounds. There are legal fees. You need a court order. If they did this with every house whose fire they put out despite the owner not paying a fee, they'd lose money on this practice. You put a lien on his house...now what? Odds are, old Mr. Cranick doesn't really care and you'll never see that $2000 or $3000 or whatever. It's much easier (and cheaper) for the FD to refuse service to someone who did not pay for it.

[Digital Stimulus]

Everyone who says that the firefighters had an obligation to help:
I think you've read and understand my own position. Do you really want me to answer your second set of questions? Even knowing that I think they're non-substantive (and that my answers would reflect that)?

[Shot From Guns]

Does this mean that anyone who cheated on their taxes, like, say, buying something over the Internet in a state that requires a disclosure yet fails to do so should be disqualified for receiving any state services?

It doesn't equate. Taxes aren't opt-in, and services like the fire and police departments provide in areas where they are paid for by taxes are also not opt-in.

Eventually the house will be sold, by him or his heirs. At that point, someone would have to make good on the $2000. In addition, they can garnish his wages and/or tax refunds to get it.

I hear eventually maybe money is great for paying the bills today.

I think you've read and understand my own position.

I understand your position. I also think it's very focused on your feelings versus the reality of the situation.

Do you really want me to answer your second set of questions?

Yes. But, honestly, I don't expect to get what I would consider to be decent answers out of you or anyone else who shares your position.

[Digital Stimulus]

I understand your position. I also think it's very focused on your feelings versus the reality of the situation.
And I find that an odd criticism. After all, asking "should" is to ask for a normative opinion. Specifically, not a "what is?" (i.e., "what's the reality of the situation?") but a "what ought?" (i.e., "how ought things be?"). A purely subjective question, IMHO.
Yes. But, honestly, I don't expect to get what I would consider to be decent answers out of you or anyone else who shares your position.
Ah, never mind then.

[Shot From Guns]

And I find that an odd criticism. After all, asking "should" is to ask for a normative opinion. Specifically, not a "what is?" (i.e., "what's the reality of the situation?") but a "what ought?" (i.e., "how ought things be?"). A purely subjective question, IMHO.

Just because a question is "subjective" in that way doesn't mean that some answers aren't more "right" than others. I doubt you would try to claim that all answers to "Should we be allowed to kill people we don't like" are equally valid, for instance.

Ah, never mind then.

What, you don't want to take the chance that you might pleasantly surprise me?

[Digital Stimulus]

Just because a question is "subjective" in that way doesn't mean that some answers aren't more "right" than others. I doubt you would try to claim that all answers to "Should we be allowed to kill people we don't like" are equally valid, for instance.
Yes, that's right. But I'm not sure how that addresses my point.
What, you don't want to take the chance that you might pleasantly surprise me?
Nah, not really. Since I think you do understand my position, feel free to imagine my responses, finding them satisfactory only insofar as I've met your low expectations.

[Shot From Guns]

Let me put it this way. I know what you say your position is, but I don't understand it insofar as it seems completely illogical to me. Thus, I'm asking questions about similar situations in an effort to either see that you apply these same rules across the board or encourage you to realize that you are being unfair to the people caught up in this situation.

[Digital Stimulus]

Let me put it this way. I know what you say your position is, but I don't understand it insofar as it seems completely illogical to me. Thus, I'm asking questions about similar situations in an effort to either see that you apply these same rules across the board or encourage you to realize that you are being unfair to the people caught up in this situation.
OK, I accept that. Although I have to note: from the outset I've said that I'm not criticizing anyone "caught up in this situation"; rather, I've explicitly stated multiple times that I understand the various viewpoints and their ramifications. So it's not clear to me how it's possible that I'm being "unfair" to anyone. So there's that.

As to whether I'm consistent:
1.) Are you currently moving to Obion County to start a volunteer fire department? If not, why not?
Of course not. I don't want to live in Obion County, so I don't.
2.) When was the last time you provided what you did for a living to someone who skipped out on a bill? If someone stiffed you once, did you provide the goods or services to them a second time?
I've never had an employer not pay me (lucky me). So, the second question is inapplicable. Although perhaps it would be pertinent to what I think is your point to mention that I've written open-source software (i.e., free to download source code, free to use).
3.) Why do you think that a firefighter has an obligation to risk their life to save property, when the owner of the property has so little regard for them as to refuse to pay a minimal fee for said services, even when those services have been of concrete benefit to him in the past?
Because if I was a firefighter, that's what I'd do. That is, if I was prevented from fulfilling what I see as my proper role as a firefighter, I would cease being a firefighter (that is, I'd quit). Someone who feels differently about being a firefighter would (and obviously does) act differently.

[Yaxche]

I understand the budget cuts, and the more we squeeze out taxes, the more services we lose... that's another argument, though.

Fact is, they had the resources to show up, to insure it didn't spread, they should've just put the damn thing out.

[Shot From Guns]

Although I have to note: from the outset I've said that I'm not criticizing anyone "caught up in this situation"; rather, I've explicitly stated multiple times that I understand the various viewpoints and their ramifications.

AFAICT, you're saying "I'm not criticizing anyone" and then criticizing them. Saying that you would have done it differently and that, essentially, anyone with a conscience would have done it differently is criticism, even if you don't explicitly say "you're a bad person for doing it this way."

Of course not. I don't want to live in Obion County, so I don't.

But you think they deserve free fire protection services. Why do you think someone else should be forced to provide what you're not willing to?

I've never had an employer not pay me (lucky me). So, the second question is inapplicable.

Consider it in a hypothetical, then. What would you do if your employer stopped paying you for your work?

Although perhaps it would be pertinent to what I think is your point to mention that I've written open-source software (i.e., free to download source code, free to use).

1.) No, it's not pertinent. That was work that you volunteered to do, by your own free choice. This, on the other hand, would be like your boss ordering you to work on the open-source freeware project of his or her choice on your lunch breaks.

2.) Nitpick: That's not what open-source means. Open-source software can be free to download and free to use, but it doesn't have to be freeware.

Because if I was a firefighter, that's what I'd do.

That's not what "obligation" means. If I had a child, I'd raise them as an atheist, but that doesn't mean that I think a Catholic or a Hindu or a Muslim family also has an obligation to raise their children as atheists.

Fact is, they had the resources to show up, to insure it didn't spread, they should've just put the damn thing out.

Fact is, they've done that in the past. For this very same person. And it still didn't in any way encourage him to start paying his fair share of the costs. Do you think that the fire department could continue to provide these services to everyone else if only a percentage of the people they were serving were actually paying for it? Even though that might mean that they eventually couldn't provide services to anyone?

[Digital Stimulus]

...and that, essentially, anyone with a conscience would have done it differently...
And that, explicitly, is what I've not said, even though you insist it must be the case. As I guessed earlier, I've met your low expectations.

And you've subsequently met mine...

[septimus]

It appears I'm in agreement with many here.
1. It was appropriate for the fire department not to signal that its fees need not be payed. I wish the Federal gov't was as careful in signalling moral hazard to Wall St. banks.
2. Mr. Cranick gambled and lost. It was probably a stupid gamble; but of course 49% of Americans have below average intelligence.

The big moral of the story was not Cranick's or fire dept's actions, but that America's hatred of taxes and embrace of hyper-libertarianism are big mistakes. I hope this story serves as a big Wake Up, America!

[kittenblue]

The first line of the linked article mentions it was a mobile home, btw.

I feel bad for the family. Because their father was lazy about paying his bills, or had fallen on tough times money-wise, they have now lost everything. I've seen the emotional toll a house fire can place on a family. A friend from high school lost her home in a fire, and the stress on their family was immense and long-lasting. And now the publicity has just made all that worse for this family. I voted for...they should have put it out. And then make him pay the fee before he's allowed back on the property.

[Claverhouse]

Thought you guys might be interested in the history of fire departments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_department):


Fire departments were again formed by insurance companies in the 18th and 19th century. Benjamin Franklin is seen as the father of the fire department in western culture[citation needed]. In 1736, he established the first fire insurance company named the Union Volunteer Fire Company in Philadelphia.[3] The city of Boston established the very first publicly funded paid fire department in America in 1679.[4]



Thanks. I read the link, and whilst I'll not bother to correct Wiki, that very entry shows how that publication hilariously combines self-contradictory sentences: there's half a century between Boston and Dr. Franklin becoming 'father'.

More thorough information here... CaptainMica.com
(http://www.riotacts.com/fire/history.html)



In 1699 François du Mouriez took interest in a better pump, fire hose and some other advancements, and provided 12 fire pumps to the city of Paris to become the first "fire chief" (director) of des pompes de la Ville de Paris in 1716. The French fire brigade was known as, "Compagnie des gardes-pompes" (literally the "Company of Pump Guards"). The French word for pumper, "pompier" became the name for French firefighters to this day. On March 11, 1733 the French government proclaimed that the service of the fire brigades would be free of charge. Prior to this there was a fee and people often avoid calling in order to avoid being charged.

Boston, as mentioned below, had a crew who was paid to maintain their one pump and respond to fires as early as 1678 and the fact that London established "fire companies" after the Great Fire of London in 1666.

But there were organizations resembling firefighting "clubs", also known as "Mutual Fire Societies" in Boston prior to this. Boston also had "Firewards" as early as 1711. As early as 1678, Boston had some fire fighting equipment and a paid crew to maintain it and respond to fires. In 1648, New York, and a few other cities, had a volunteer "rattle watch" who patrolled the streets. If a fire was discovered these people would sound an alarm and help organize bucket brigades. As early as 1731 there is a record of the City of New York purchasing fire apparatus. This was a hand pump/brake bar engine. There is a photo of this engine on the FASNY Fire Museum website.

But the thought that a burning home, with no fire mark, was left to burn, was probably not true. In fact, in the U.S., there is no evidence to support this belief.


And in Ipswich, England there was organisation for fire-fighting two hundred years before Franklin's 'paternity' --- which I'm sure was paralleled in many other contemporary cities around the world. Transport Museum (http://www.ipswichtransportmuseum.co.uk/hfire.htm)...


The first "fire service" in Ipswich dates back over 400 years. In 1564 regulations were issued by the Great Court, or early council, under which every Burgess was required to provide a leather bucket, known as a "Bobbett" for the purpose of fighting fires in the mainly wooden buildings lining the narrow streets. Further efforts in 1568 saw the Town Treasurer being required to buy, for each parish, ladders and cromes, or long rakes, for pulling burning thatch off buildings. He was evidently not too diligent for in 1631 there were only two of each in the town.


Theree's nothing useful I can comment on this case, except that the situation seems to we statist socialist Europeans just another case of crazy Americana; and the righteous comments eerily mirror the libertarian viewpoints of commentators at Volokh's on random subjects... The pleasure of fault-finding in no way disguises the fact the unfortunate Mr. Cranick had a horrible experience.

[BigT]

But you think they deserve free fire protection services. Why do you think someone else should be forced to provide what you're not willing to?

Why do you claim that something is illogical but use an emotional basis to back up a moral position.

There's plenty of things I don't do that I perceive as being immoral if they don't do it. Different people are in different circumstances. I cannot afford to help the poor since I am pretty close to the poor line myself. That doesn't mean I don't think people that make significantly more money than they need shouldn't be helping out the poor. I can't even get out of the flipping house right now, but that doesn't mean I think it's moral for people to not do things that I only avoid because I can't leave. I also tend to handle stressful situations poorly. That doesn't mean I don't expect people who can handle stressful situations to do it for others.

Digital Stimulus has indicated that he isn't going to help out because, by not living there, he is not in the position to do so. There's no reason he can't expect other people who do live there to do what he considers a moral duty. It's not complicated.

Or do you expect me to think you are immoral because you don't travel to Africa to help with the AIDS epidemic?

[Mighty_Girl]

I am to the left of practically anyone in this forum, and I agree with the firefighter's decision.

Being a liberal means that you also have to trust the people to know what's best for themselves. The people in that county set up that system (however stupid and fucked-up), Mr. Cranick made his own decision, the system they set up worked as it should.

Perhaps they will re-think their system. Or not, as is their right.

[Student Driver]

I lean liberal and I thought the firefighters did the absolute best they could. They were between a rock and a hard place! And I hope people read the thread before they respond.

1. County votes not to have any fire protection through taxes because OMG TAXES.
2. County agrees to have people pay the FD $75 for fire protection.
3. Mr. Crannick does not pay. His house lights up.
4. FD comes, puts it out.
5. Time passes. Mr. Crannick does not pay. His house lights up.
6. FD comes. Makes sure no lives are in danger. Does not put house out.
7. CONTROVERSY.

It is clear to me that Crannick thought he could continue living off his neighbor's dime. This is what this comes down to. Crannick thought his neighbors would pay the fee and thus he was exempt. That he was speshul.

He deserved what he got.

This is pretty much me. Numbers 3 through 4 make it especially odious. I'd be so f'ing grateful for #3, and the lesson that "oh, fires can affect me" that I'd probably start paying my $75 out of gratitude for saving my ass when I didn't deserve it. I'd probably also have sent a round of pizzas to the firehouse.

The fire chief had to make a tough decision in telling the fire fighters to not put out the fire. Fire fighting is his and their job, and it probably hurt to make that decision and stand by, watching disaster befall someone... but keeping the fire company financially afloat and able to fight fires in the future is also his job. Freeloaders jeopardize the future ability of his crew to effectively fight fires in unincorporated areas, and continuously saving the asses of people who aren't contributing demonstrates a willingness to accommodate freeloaders. Crannick already used his Get Out of Jail Free card. The fire company did him a favor before (and probably sternly reminded him at the time of the risk he ran for not having paid his fees).

In the other thread, several times people suggested that the fire company could have put out the fire and levied the costs of the operation against him later. Make Crannick pay for the combined wages, equipment usage, water usage, etc. Great idea, and maybe in that community something like that will be adopted eventually... but at the time of the fire, there was apparently no such mechanism in place for the department to actually do this. Accept the verbal pleadings of Crannick to pay "whatever it took?" Why? He probably swore he'd keep his dues up when he was helped before.

That said, if it's demonstrated that Crannick did pay his dues in the intervening years between fires, and had genuinely forgotten this year's payment, then I'm likely to be more sympathetic to him. If he just went without paying most/all of the time, then I'm on the fire chief's side. He was cut some slack once. Not again.

(I also have to admit that if I were one of the fire fighters, I might have defied the chief's orders, since at the moment, I wouldn't have gone through the above reasoning... I'd just have the emotional tug of seeing a man lose his home.)

[Derleth]

Cranick made a number of bets and lost. We don't blame the stock exchange when someone loses his house playing penny stocks, so why should we be any more empathetic when someone gambles with fire department defunding multiple times and loses?

[Little Nemo]

Another factor to consider is that a fire department doesn't just appear by magic. If everyone waited until their house was on fire in order to pay, it wouldn't matter how much they were willing to pay because there wouldn't be anyone to offer the money to. The fire department only exists because people are willing to pay in advance.

[gonzomax]

It was not about the 75 bucks, he offered to pay it and more.
They let 3 dogs and a cat die, while they were there and had the means to prevent it. They were teaching him a lesson. He had paid the fee in the past.
I hope a beginning Alzheimers person doesn't forget. I hope some old person does not let it slip her mind. I hope someone developing mental illnesses does not have a fire.
The International Firefighters Org. is decrying the firemen who allowed the fire to burn. Animals lovers are shocked that they could allow animals to die when they could have stopped it.
Next Sunday go ask your priest to explain faith ,hope and charity to you. Ask him why this scene was an affront.Kneel in the pew and think about how wrong this was. Go ask your Rabbi about it. He will explain it.

[Rhythmdvl]

Does this mean that anyone who cheated on their taxes, like, say, buying something over the Internet in a state that requires a disclosure yet fails to do so should be disqualified for receiving any state services?

It doesn't equate. Taxes aren't opt-in, and services like the fire and police departments provide in areas where they are paid for by taxes are also not opt-in.
Ah, great. I agree. They're not the same. If someone shirks an obligation (in this case, to pay taxes), then it's an even stronger claim:

If you haven't paid taxes on all of your internet purchases (assuming your a state that obliges you to do so), then you should not have any expectation of redress should the police, fire department, etc., intentionally withhold services from you.

[Little Nemo]

It was not about the 75 bucks, he offered to pay it and more.
They let 3 dogs and a cat die, while they were there and had the means to prevent it. They were teaching him a lesson. He had paid the fee in the past.
I hope a beginning Alzheimers person doesn't forget. I hope some old person does not let it slip her mind. I hope someone developing mental illnesses does not have a fire.
The International Firefighters Org. is decrying the firemen who allowed the fire to burn. Animals lovers are shocked that they could allow animals to die when they could have stopped it.
Next Sunday go ask your priest to explain faith ,hope and charity to you. Ask him why this scene was an affront.Kneel in the pew and think about how wrong this was. Go ask your Rabbi about it. He will explain it.Well maybe the dogs and cats were a terrorist sleeper cell and they were going to stage a nuclear attack next month. So by standing down, those fire men saved the lives of tens of thousands of people and baby ducklings.

So you might be the kind of person who would callously let baby ducklings die. But I can look my generic clergyperson of choice in the eye and say "Not me."

[Shot From Guns]

...and that, essentially, anyone with a conscience would have done it differently...
And that, explicitly, is what I've not said, even though you insist it must be the case.

You said that it's both what you would have done and what the firefighters should have done. If you think that someone else's conscience could come to a different conclusion, then you would think the first conclusion but not the second.

If you disagree with my assessment of your position, then you must acknowledge that the firefighters made the right choice by letting the house burn.

Or do you expect me to think you are immoral because you don't travel to Africa to help with the AIDS epidemic?

1.) Shhhhhh, you're getting in the way of my RO.

2.) The distinction is that I'm not in here saying that everyone in Africa should be helping everyone who has AIDS and are bad people if they don't.

It was not about the 75 bucks, he offered to pay it and more.

As has been patiently explained to you time and again: The world does not work on imaginary future maybe money. The fire department cannot pay the salaries of its employees, the rent on its buildings, the bills for the upkeep of its equipment, if it does not receive consistent income.

They let 3 dogs and a cat die, while they were there and had the means to prevent it.[/quite]

Cranick let his own animals die, by (a) not paying to protect them when he had the chance and (b) not getting them out of the burning house himself.

[quote]Next Sunday go ask your priest to explain faith ,hope and charity to you. Ask him why this scene was an affront.

It's such a good thing we live in a theocracy. Oh wait.

[Digital Stimulus]

You said that it's both what you would have done and what the firefighters should have done. If you think that someone else's conscience could come to a different conclusion, then you would think the first conclusion but not the second.
Or, perhaps, I just accept that other people can have opinions and make decisions that do not match mine.
If you disagree with my assessment of your position, then you must acknowledge that the firefighters made the right choice by letting the house burn.
As I've said -- repeatedly -- I understand why they let the house burn. They made a choice, just as Cranick did to not pay the $75 service fee (assuming he didn't really "forget" it, but actively decided). The system worked as designed...it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Nonetheless, if I were a firefighter on the scene, I would've chosen differently. Not only that, but I think the other firefighters should've chosen differently. They didn't...but that's because they are not me.

[Shot From Guns]

Or, perhaps, I just accept that other people can have opinions and make decisions that do not match mine.

I do not think this means what you think it means. You say that you accept this, and you keep taking offense at my suggestion that you think they were wrong, but then you again repeat this statement:

Nonetheless, if I were a firefighter on the scene, I would've chosen differently. Not only that, but I think the other firefighters should've chosen differently.

If you think they should have chosen differently, that means you think they were wrong. You can understand why someone made a choice but still think they were wrong. For example, I understand why Hitler made the Jews a scapegoat for everything that was going wrong in the German economy, and that in no way excuses what he did.

[Digital Stimulus]

You say that you accept this, and you keep taking offense at my suggestion that you think they were wrong...
No, what I take "offense at"* is your insistence on having my opinion be a lesson in universal morality.

Oh, and -- congratulations! You've Godwin-ed the thread in the process.

*It's notable that you cannot distinguish between my disagreement with you and me "taking offense at".

[Shot From Guns]

No, what I take "offense at"* is your insistence on having my opinion be a lesson in universal morality.

Well then please explain to me how you can think someone should have made a different decision but simultaneously not think that they made the wrong one. Thinking that things should be other than they are seems to me to pretty much be the definition of thinking they're currently wrong.

Oh, and -- congratulations! You've Godwin-ed the thread in the process.

It was entirely intentional.

[Digital Stimulus]

Well then please explain to me how you can think someone should have made a different decision but simultaneously not think that they made the wrong one. Thinking that things should be other than they are seems to me to pretty much be the definition of thinking they're currently wrong.
But I do think the firefighters made the wrong decision and have said as much. That's not the same as thinking they made an unconscionable decision, nor does it mean I hold them in contempt, nor that they acted immorally. Because -- at least in this case -- I understand their viewpoint and can thereby respect their decisions. Even if I disagree.
It was entirely intentional.
And that speaks volumes.

[Shot From Guns]

But I do think the firefighters made the wrong decision and have said as much. That's not the same as thinking they made an unconscionable decision, nor does it mean I hold them in contempt, nor that they acted immorally. Because -- at least in this case -- I understand their viewpoint and can thereby respect their decisions. Even if I disagree.

Let me get this straight.

1.) The firefighters made the wrong decision.
2.) The firefighters did not act immorally.
3.) You respect their decision.

I think the problem is that I see these things as being mutually exclusive. If it was not immoral, how can it be the wrong decision? Isn't that what makes it wrong? And how can you respect a decision that you think was wrong?

And that speaks volumes.

Yes, it says "I don't take myself nearly as seriously as you do."

[Digital Stimulus]

If it was not immoral, how can it be the wrong decision?
Because "wrong" and "immoral" are not equivalent.

[Shot From Guns]

Because "wrong" and "immoral" are not equivalent.

If not, please define "right" and "wrong" in the contexts in which you're using them here.

Aren't you glad you kept responding? Now we're actually getting somewhere! :D

[Digital Stimulus]

If not, please define "right" and "wrong" in the contexts in which you're using them here.
Right: what I would do.
Wrong: what I would not do.
Aren't you glad you kept responding? Now we're actually getting somewhere! :D
No, not really. No new ground has been uncovered and seemingly perpetual repetition is quite tedious.

[Shot From Guns]

Right: what I would do.
Wrong: what I would not do.

Let's say you're lactose intolerant. Is it then "wrong" for someone else to drink a glass of milk, just because it's not what you would do? Would you be saying about a group of people at a birthday party, "I would not have had my cake a la mode, and I think those people who had ice cream on their cake were wrong"?

Clearly, "what I would do" is not your criterion for determining right and wrong.

[Digital Stimulus]

Let's say you're lactose intolerant. Is it then "wrong" for someone else to drink a glass of milk, just because it's not what you would do? Would you be saying about a group of people at a birthday party, "I would not have had my cake a la mode, and I think those people who had ice cream on their cake were wrong"?

Clearly, "what I would do" is not your criterion for determining right and wrong.
I went out to run some errands, got back, read that, and thought, "What the? Guns is better than that."

Then it dawned on me...of course you're better than that. Your job must be terribly boring; I hope I've provided a bit of distraction for you.

IHBmildlyT. I'm out. HAND.

[Little Nemo]

Maybe I've missed it in earlier posts but did Cranick have home insurance? If so, then his insurer is certainly an effected party in this situation. You'd think they would require their customers to pay for fire protection when it's an option (or highly mark up their rates if they decline to pay).

Otherwise I can see somebody saying "My $10,000 trailer is insured for $30,000? Yeah, sure I'm going to pay my fire department dues. Right after I light all these candles."

[Shot From Guns]

IHBmildlyT. I'm out. HAND.

I'm sorry, did you just accuse me of being a troll? I guess that's one way of getting out of actually having to explain the complete logical inconsistencies in your opinions.

[gonzomax]

The poll is wrong. the firemen wanted to save the home and the animals. they were ordered not to.

[Ellen Cherry]

Then it dawned on me...of course you're better than that. Your job must be terribly boring; I hope I've provided a bit of distraction for you.

IHBmildlyT. I'm out. HAND.

Since "IHBT" is known to stand for "I Have Been Trolled," I'm asking you, Digital Stimulus, to knock it off with accusations of trolling.

Ellen Cherry
IMHO Moderator

[Shot From Guns]

The poll is wrong. the firemen wanted to save the home and the animals. they were ordered not to.

And they chose to obey those orders. So either you think they were right to obey the orders, however you may think the orders themselves were the wrong call, or you think that the firefighters should have disobeyed those orders and saved the house anyway.

As I believe I've mentioned upthread, the reasoning behind your poll selection does not have to be identical to every other person who makes the same choice.

[JThunder]

Right: what I would do.
Wrong: what I would not do.
Seriously?

I would drink skim milk, but not 2% milk. Does this mean that I consider it "right" to drink skim and "wrong" to drink 2%?

I think that your definitions of right and wrong fail this test.

[Asimovian]

Interesting that this thread has been revived, given that the same thing has happened again (http://www.care2.com/causes/firefighters-watch-home-burn-and-do-nothing-again.html) in the same location.

[BrotherCadfael]

I would drink skim milk, but not 2% milk. Does this mean that I consider it "right" to drink skim and "wrong" to drink 2%?I don't drink either skim or 2%. I am... the 1%.