Cutting down on the hyperbole, I’m simply agreeing with a general sentiment: he made a choice, he should have no legitimate expectation of services.
Everyone who agrees with this should also, for consistency, agree with the notion that anyone who makes a similar choice, anyone who does not pay for services, has no legitimate claim or expectation of services.
For example, if you (the general you, I don’t know all 50 states’ laws) buy something over the Internet from a retailer outside your state, the retailer doesn’t collect the tax. Instead, you’re supposed to report the tax to your state and pay it. Not paying it, of course, is not only illegal, but saps the state of income it would have otherwise earned and hurts your neighbors (for many reasons, including shifting the tax burden to the lower income brackets; those with lower access to the Internet).
Following the logic of the above, if he got his just desserts and the firefighters were right in standing idly by, then so should the police for anyone who is not in mortal danger and did not report his or her Internet tax purchases (assuming that person purchased enough items over the course of a year to hit the $75 threshold).
There are a myriad other examples of tax or fee dodging, but given that this is an Internet forum, it seemed the easiest and broadest example to use.
If Cranick had only paid $74 of his required $75, you might have a case. Instead, he failed to pay any of the $75.
And you know what happens to people that fail to pay their taxes? They have liens placed on their house, they have their wages garnished, they end up on crappy commercials for tax lawyers, and they go to jail.
So by your “logic” Cranick should both lose his house AND go to jail.
What’s this bullshit about “duty” and “a calling”? Firefighters are employed to put out fires, not fight Lex Luthor. It’s a fucking job, just like any other. Yes, it’s high-risk. So is coalmining. And if there are rules in place for how to do that job, it’s OK for the firefighters to stick to those rules.
Great. So you’re in agreement? You think that everyone here–particularly those making the claim that the outcome (house burning down, etc.) hinges on his unpaid bill–deserve no police, fire, health, road, or any other government service until they tally up all their receipts and send the government a check (including penalties and interest) for the amount they owe.
Putting out the fire was not required to save the life of Cranick or any other human being. Walk into the ER and ask for a boob job with no insurance and no intention to pay, and let me know how long they laugh before sending you on your way.
In a case where (a) I have the option to pay for a service and (b) it is explicitly stated that not paying results in no service, I will 100% agree with you.
This is where your terrible analogy falls apart. Taxes are not optional, and in the U.S. one does not lose public services paid for with tax money by not paying them, in whole or in part.
No, it makes the analogy weaker. It is established that you have no choice about paying taxes–and the government has strong tools to make you comply–but that you will recieve government services regardless of (a) whether or not you comply and (b) your individual contribution even with 100% compliance.
Your analogy *only *works in the cases where a fee is *optional *and the explicit consequence for nonpayment is that you don’t get the service.
If you think taxes are optional, tell the government you won’t be paying any this year and let me know how that works out for you. Bonus points if you live in or visit a state with sales tax and can convince cashiers to leave it off your totals.
Yes, I agree. Shirking an obligation (such as taxes) means that the consequences of choosing to act against should be that much stronger.
Didn’t fulfill your obligation to pay taxes on your Internet purchases? Then you’re worse than Canicik; you made the same type of choice he did and you chose to violate the law. No police for you.
Unless, of course, you’re simply playing contract lawyer and pretending that there are no moral/ethical underpinnings. Great, have fun with that. If he sues, shouldn’t the department be estopped from claiming he knew of the consequences?
Fortunately, our society and its laws disagree with you.
ETA: Since *your *arguments apparently all lead up to the just-as-ridiculous end conclusion “people should get whatever they want regardless of whether or not they pay for it,” I’ll thank you to please provide to me, free of charge, whatever it is you do for a living.
The county had a lot of ways to collect the 75 bucks. They could have saved the house and sent him a larger bill.They could have fined him. The neighbor offered to pay even more to save the home and animals.Cranick offered to pay on the spot , and pay more. So quit the BS about the money. It was about teaching him a lesson. You don’t fuck with bureaucrats. They allowed his home to burn down and his animals to die in a painful way, to teach him a lesson.
They made an example of him. Every body involved diminished themselves and showed a lack of humanity and empathy.
I’m just going to go out on limb here and suggest that he/she/it IS providing you, free of charge, what he does do for a living, that is to say nothing.
Or should I be wrong, and he/she/it does actually do something for a living, let’s hope it doesn’t require logic, inteligent thought, or reasoning skills.
Olbion County has decided that they will not provide fire service as part of their services. Pay your taxes or not, in Olbion County you get support from the Sheriff but no fire services. Don’t pay your taxes and there is a system in place to address that, but that is not the withholding of services they provide.
The nearby town of South Fulton has offered fire services for $75 a year to some residents of Olbion County. Pay and get coverage. Don’t pay and get no coverage.
Oh, I’m sorry. Please provide a cite that the police will make sure you paid your taxes before they respond to your 911 call. Alternatively, admit that you’re a fucking retard.
ETA:
Nice try, kidchameleon, but he apparently thinks he’s making some kind of “point” by this completely retarded analogy.
Calling for a cite in the pit about a claim I didn’t make? A fucking asshole.
Or maybe by calling someone “fucking retarded” you’re making a desperate plea for help getting off the short bus?
Who the fuck made the claim that the police will make sure of jack and/or shit? Fucking retarded asshole.
Look, it’s simple. Want to stay warm and fuzzy inside contractual terms? Go right ahead, none of my posts apply so demonstrate your stupidity with someone else. But taking a quick look at your responses within the thread, you’re all about making a point and all about … oh, fuck it, you’re oblivious and not worth it.
The point to the adults going back and forth is that if you want to make a consequentialist argument about failing to act to secure the service and the justification of the particular penalty (i.e., withholding services), then that same argument applies across the board—and that same argument is even stronger when it comes to failing an obligation to pay a fee. Want to apply some other form of punitive measure? Go ahead, there are lots of ways to fit non-compliance into this. But to claim that absolute witholding of services is justified under this case requires much more than SfG panty-waisted shouting “retard!”
Let’s back up a bit and explain to you the three reasons why what you said earlier was wrong:
You tried to suggest that failing to pay some taxes should result in losing all services. As far as Cranick is concerned, that doesn’t apply here because Cranick failed to pay the entire free, several times. Did you know he’s done this before?
If we do apply what you consider logic, we would actually look at the concept of “failing to obligatory pay taxes” and consider the result, do you know what happens when you fail to pay your taxes? I said it before already, but here it is again: fines, penalties, garnishing wages, liens, and jail time. And if you actually knew the result, you would also know that they can frequently be extrondonarily out of proportion to the crime committed.
So, here we had Cranick fail to pay his $75. But the $75 is optional. Did you know that? He was given the choice, pay and receive service, don’t pay and not receiver service. He choose not to pay. So given that it was voluntary, what options does the municipality (that he doesn’t live in) have to fine/jail him?
The fire was the result of Cranick’s inaction, not the fire fighters. If Cranick choose to not pay a repair man, his water heater would continue to leak and eventually destroy his house. His that the repairman’s fault? If Cranick decides not to get his oil changed, who’s fault his it when his engine ceases?