Liberty, choices, fairness and .... ooops.

[Les is more]

Looked at one way, the lesson is that the $75 bucks should have been mandatory whether the Cranicks liked it or not.

 

I feel that way, and you feel that way, and we would have voted that way if we were there....but the voters who did vote there voted otherwise. Does that count for anything?

 

I think that brings us back to one of Jamie's statements-

 

But I also condemn the firefighters involved for allowing this policy to persist--unless they have been fighting hard to educate the public and their elected officials of the potential dire consequences of it. Funny, when you look at many of the big cities with great, professional departments--it usually came AFTER some major historic fire that consumed large portions of the city.

[SeanC]

Looked at one way, the lesson is that the $75 bucks should have been mandatory whether the Cranicks liked it or not.

Perhaps, but the Cranicks were willing to pay "whatever the cost," so in this case anyway, it seems like the lesson is that public authorities are always going to place policy compliance ahead of public safety ("Neener-neener, you didn't pay when we told you to so you can go to hell."). Clearly, $75 bucks means more to the Fulton FD than the Cranick's property. And that's a good lesson to teach -- that government cares more about your compliance than your property.

 

I think the better solution would be for the residents outside Fulton city limits to form a rural VFD, and apply for the many state and federal grants to help them fund it (part of which will be paid for by Fulton residents), in effect telling the city of Fulton they can take their ex-officio complacency and go piss up a rope.

[tallman]

You're right, "every effort" wasn't made.

They should have kicked in the door and beat him until he coughed up the $75.

 

 

Two different government entities trying to solve a problem.

Since he knew about it, had paid it for years, was notified, and admitted all of this, how much more effort was needed?

Automatic deduction from a bank account?

 

At what point must we give the right to screw up a burial?

We can't protect people from themself.

 

It would cost more than $75 to go around knocking on doors, continuous calling, or whatever other manner of follow-up beyond what they already did so how can the city justify the expense?

 

If everyone who sympathizes sends them $75 they'll be better off than they were.

 

Don't wish tragedy on anyone but I don't allow anyone to work at my home w/out showing workman's comp coverage, licenses, and where necessary, bonding.

 

It is the way of the world, IMO, so we must get on the float and enjoy the parade, watch from the sidelines, or get run over.

Best wishes.

[russell_bynum]

Looked at one way, the lesson is that the $75 bucks should have been mandatory whether the Cranicks liked it or not.

 

I feel that way, and you feel that way, and we would have voted that way if we were there....but the voters who did vote there voted otherwise. Does that count for anything?

 

Exactly.

[russell_bynum]

Looked at one way, the lesson is that the $75 bucks should have been mandatory whether the Cranicks liked it or not.

 

I feel that way, and you feel that way, and we would have voted that way if we were there....but the voters who did vote there voted otherwise. Does that count for anything?

 

I think that brings us back to one of Jamie's statements-

 

But I also condemn the firefighters involved for allowing this policy to persist--unless they have been fighting hard to educate the public and their elected officials of the potential dire consequences of it. Funny, when you look at many of the big cities with great, professional departments--it usually came AFTER some major historic fire that consumed large portions of the city.

 

How does that bring us back to Jamie's comment?

 

The voters decided that if you don't pay the $75, your house burns down.

 

He didn't pay the $75 and his house burned down. Nobody else's house burned down.

 

This wasn't a huge city fire that burned down half the city because someone's cow knocked over a gas lamp. It's getting an insane amount of media attention for some reason, but otherwise, the system that they setup worked exactly the way it was supposed to. It isn't the way I would have voted to set things up, but I don't really see how there was a "lesson learned"...unless somehow they didn't know that if you don't pay your $75 you don't get covered.

[John Ranalletta]

There seems to be a consistent thread running through this and other like topics. Once upon a time, people were free to suffer the consequences of their failures and enjoy the rewards of the good ones.

 

A growing faction says it's not fair to keep your rewards to yourself as they must be shared with the commune; and, trust the commune to structure your life so no ill consequences can come of your dumb decisions. In fact, we won't allow you to make dumb decisions.

 

The result is people never learn to make better decisions and walk around in a Borg-like coma in this muddled middle ground protected from pain and pleasure that resembles Stepford Wives.

 

 

[Rocer]

 

What is the demarcation between a Nanny State and a Non-Nanny or Screw'm again" State according to Tewks ?

 

With sincere apologies to Tweks. These comments were meant to be attributed to philbytx's post. My bad.

[ghaverkamp]

There seems to be a consistent thread running through this and other like topics. Once upon a time, people were free to suffer the consequences of their failures and enjoy the rewards of the good ones.

 

A growing faction says it's not fair to keep your rewards to yourself as they must be shared with the commune; and, trust the commune to structure your life so no ill consequences can come of your dumb decisions. In fact, we won't allow you to make dumb decisions.

 

Lovely, if vacuous and unsupportable platitudes.

 

When was this time? And how did it differ from now?

[philbytx]

My statement had nothing to do with a Nanny or Screw 'em state.

I merely "stated" screw 'em because THEY screwed up. And I certainly do NOT want to pay for people like that when they DO screw up. It's bad enough in a 'general' way to support people who make stupid decisions. Specifically, in this case, they had the option to protect themselves and their "stuff" and chose not to and they suffered the consequences. So screw 'em...I have zero sympathy, empathy or any other pathy you can think of!

 

 

[eddd]

Opt-in opt-out is a really poor, short-sighted plan. There are somethings that should be left to government to provide for the safety and welfare of all citizens. Case in point:

 

You and your family are on your way to South Padre Island, TX for a week at the beach. You are involved in an accident, or your motorhome catches on fire as you travel through the part of the county that my fire department serves. You certainly didn't pay any taxes to the local Emergency Services District. Yet, you expect that our EMS and fire department will be there during your time of need. And that is a reasonable expectation.

 

I doubt that you'd be complaining about the nanny state making all the local residents pay for fire and EMS protection.

 

 

 

 

[Les is more]

No Russell, the city didn't burn--Hardly the point. The reason it goes back to Jamie's comment is that an ill informed populace will likely make an ill informed choice on the ballot. People will vote as they will. So, why not send them to the ballot box armed with some knowledge? Teaching people some of what the people expressly trained to mitigate fire risk and respond to fire when it happens know, at least has a chance of a producing a populace that has a sense that opt in/opt out may not exactly promote the common welfare.

[ghaverkamp]

You and your family are on your way to South Padre Island, TX for a week at the beach. You are involved in an accident, or your motorhome catches on fire as you travel through the part of the county that my fire department serves. You certainly didn't pay any taxes to the local Emergency Services District. Yet, you expect that our EMS and fire department will be there during your time of need. And that is a reasonable expectation.

 

I doubt that you'd be complaining about the nanny state making all the local residents pay for fire and EMS protection.

 

The market will provide. The efficiency of the free market will make it so even the time required for the rescue fee negotiation will eventually drive toward zero.

[John Ranalletta]

There seems to be a consistent thread running through this and other like topics. Once upon a time, people were free to suffer the consequences of their failures and enjoy the rewards of the good ones.

 

A growing faction says it's not fair to keep your rewards to yourself as they must be shared with the commune; and, trust the commune to structure your life so no ill consequences can come of your dumb decisions. In fact, we won't allow you to make dumb decisions.

 

Lovely, if vacuous and unsupportable platitudes.

 

When was this time? And how did it differ from now?

Glad you enjoyed it, Greg. I can't pinpoint the exact date when the tide started to turn. Was it when farmers bought too many cows and the government agreed to buy their excess milk; or when NYC initiated the current bailout culture that will probably see the federal bailouts of CA and IL if not others? Was the S&L bailout a marker? How about when grade inflation and grading on the curve swept over most of our colleges and universities accompanied by social advancement in schools replacing achievement or out and out failure?

 

Perhaps, it started when FNMA and FREDDIE MAC began to insure liar's loans. After all, everybody deserves a house of their own. Was it when defense contractors could up charge billions because they under bid projects on the front end to get the work, knowing the Pentagon would approve the up charges.

 

Had the tide already turned when the auto companies where bailed out while bondholder interests were crushed?

 

Here's a history of financial bailouts in the US, each one rewarded failure.

 

BTW, d'ya think the guy in TN will buy health insurance when mandated? Should he if doesn't want to?

 

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

There seems to be a consistent thread running through this and other like topics. Once upon a time, people were free to suffer the consequences of their failures and enjoy the rewards of the good ones.

 

A growing faction says it's not fair to keep your rewards to yourself as they must be shared with the commune; and, trust the commune to structure your life so no ill consequences can come of your dumb decisions. In fact, we won't allow you to make dumb decisions.

 

The result is people never learn to make better decisions and walk around in a Borg-like coma in this muddled middle ground protected from pain and pleasure that resembles Stepford Wives.

 

 

Herbert Spencer said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

 

Seems to be an applicable rephrasing.

[ghaverkamp]

Here's a history of financial bailouts in the US, each one rewarded failure.

 

It's a pretty short history.

 

I mean, just picking up major bailouts or proposed bailouts, we could look to the attempts to compensate Southern slave owners for their unwise investments in slaves who were to be emancipated. The New Deal bailed out those who gambled and lost, or those who simply hadn't shown the wherewithal to save. The G.I. Bill bailed out those folks who gambled that defending our civilization would provide a better life, but returned home to find that they were without skills or jobs. Of course, we bailed out our European allies twice, at great expense.

 

It is a shame that the Founders didn't explicitly write something into the Constitution to permit the nation to collect taxes or intervene in commerce, so there wouldn't have to be these uncharacteristic actions that act against its very creation.

[Whip]

Darwin isn't finished yet.

 

Let him sort it out.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Likely, we'll disagree on the semantics, e.g. IMO, the GI bill benefits were the quid pro quo in a contractual arrangement - not a bailout, but a reward just as SS was intended to operate.

 

If you want to confuse the payment of damages and the honoring of contractual obligations with bailouts, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

 

I'd even concede that New Deal-like recovery expenditures make sense, but the programs (for individuals and corporations), once born, never die.

[russell_bynum]

No Russell, the city didn't burn--Hardly the point. The reason it goes back to Jamie's comment is that an ill informed populace will likely make an ill informed choice on the ballot. People will vote as they will. So, why not send them to the ballot box armed with some knowledge? Teaching people some of what the people expressly trained to mitigate fire risk and respond to fire when it happens know, at least has a chance of a producing a populace that has a sense that opt in/opt out may not exactly promote the common welfare.

 

Do we have some information that indicates that the vote was made without such information?

[DavidEBSmith]

There seems to be a consistent thread running through this and other like topics. Once upon a time, people were free to suffer the consequences of their failures and enjoy the rewards of the good ones.

 

A growing faction says it's not fair to keep your rewards to yourself as they must be shared with the commune; and, trust the commune to structure your life so no ill consequences can come of your dumb decisions. In fact, we won't allow you to make dumb decisions.

 

The result is people never learn to make better decisions and walk around in a Borg-like coma in this muddled middle ground protected from pain and pleasure that resembles Stepford Wives.

 

 

Oh, WTF, John. I'll ignore the previous personal attack and address the "merits" of what you're saying.

 

You may go off and suffer the consequences of your failures as long as they don't affect me.

 

When you are too stupid to have failures that don't affect me, we have government to step in and stop you from doing stupid things that affect me, so that I don't have to spend all my time sitting on the edge of my property with a gun and a fire extinguisher to protect myself from your greed and stupidity.

 

No, you do not have the right to make stupid choices that adversely affect me, just as the Canadians don't have the right to invade our country and adversely affect me, and crackheads from the bad part of town don't have the right to come to my house and steal my sh*t and adversely affect me. That is the purpose of government: to help me protect myself from other people doing bad, malicious, or stupid sh*t that I can't protect myself against without a little common help. And to protect you, and everybody else in the community.

 

We don't live in the 1790's when you could go off across the Appalachians into the wilderness and do whatever you please. We live in a complex, interconnected world. Your bad decisions affect me. Your learning that your decisions are bad comes at my expense. You don't have the right to do that to me.

 

You're terribly, terribly concerned that someone may do something that will infringe on your liberty. That's a two-way street: if no one may infringe on your liberty, neither may you infringe on anyone else's liberty. To try to ensure that we don't infringe on each others liberty, we all turn over some enforcement powers to the government.

 

Yes, the government prevents us from doing some things we want to do. The goal is to keep us from doing the stupid, malicious, or bad things to others that we want to do that will harm them. If you make the stupid decision that you want to dump toxic waste in the middle of a big city where it will poison a bunch of people, yes, the government should structure your life to prevent you from doing that. If you're indifferent to whether starting a fire on your property will catch your neighbor's property on fire, yes, the government should step in to structure your life differently.

 

People don't learn not to do stupid things unless there are consequences. Government is often the consequences. If you set fire to your property and it catches mine on fire, there are two possible adverse consequences that will make you understand it was a dumb decision. I can come over and shoot you myself, or the government can take the enforcement out of my hands and cite you and fine you or allow me to sue you and enforce the judgment. Civilized people think the latter solution is better.

[DavidEBSmith]

Likely, we'll disagree on the semantics, e.g. IMO, the GI bill benefits were the quid pro quo in a contractual arrangement - not a bailout, but a reward just as SS was intended to operate.

 

Wrong. The GI Bill was enacted in 1944, when many, if not most, of the beneficiaries were already in the service. It was after the fact of enlistment.

[KMG_365]

No Russell, the city didn't burn--Hardly the point. The reason it goes back to Jamie's comment is that an ill informed populace will likely make an ill informed choice on the ballot. People will vote as they will. So, why not send them to the ballot box armed with some knowledge? Teaching people some of what the people expressly trained to mitigate fire risk and respond to fire when it happens know, at least has a chance of a producing a populace that has a sense that opt in/opt out may not exactly promote the common welfare.

 

Do we have some information that indicates that the vote was made without such information?

Quod erat demonstrandum--his freakin' house burned to the ground, yet he stated he thought they'd somehow still come out and put it out despite the fact that he knew he didn't "opt in"! (see Eebie's post above . . . which I'm still laughing about! )

 

Sometimes the Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways . . . .

[russell_bynum]

No Russell, the city didn't burn--Hardly the point. The reason it goes back to Jamie's comment is that an ill informed populace will likely make an ill informed choice on the ballot. People will vote as they will. So, why not send them to the ballot box armed with some knowledge? Teaching people some of what the people expressly trained to mitigate fire risk and respond to fire when it happens know, at least has a chance of a producing a populace that has a sense that opt in/opt out may not exactly promote the common welfare.

 

Do we have some information that indicates that the vote was made without such information?

Quod erat demonstrandum--his freakin' house burned to the ground, yet he stated he thought they'd somehow still come out and put it out despite the fact that he knew he didn't "opt in"! (see Eebie's post above . . . which I'm still laughing about! )

 

Sometimes the Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways . . . .

 

Well of course he's going to pretend he thought they'd still come out. What does that have to do with anything?

 

Am I missing something here?

[Mike O]

Here's an interesting twist.... (this story sprouted up after the incident made national news). It's 1/2 mile from my house:

 

"No Pay - No Spray"

 

"Arvada used to cover us or they'd come down and cover us," says Ken Harris. But not anymore.

 

"The chief and the district board have decided that we're just not going to send fire trucks into those areas," says Arvada Fire Protection District Spokesman Scott Pribble.

 

So we have a homeowner that WAS getting fire protection and now the city is refusing. An (unfortunate) economic sign of the times (BTW, we've been asked to support a tax increase here in Arvada for fire protection - one which I support).

 

But what of THIS homeowner? Coverage he was granted is now being rescinded? (BTW, Arvada requires these local homeowners to pony up funds to lay water lines, hydrants etc. - $50k per acre). It wasn't HIS choice.

 

Mike O

 

 

[Bud]

Just what I need...my neighbor decides he wants to shop around,

so he goes with a lowball company. His sh*t starts on fire, but he doesn't have the same coverage I have, or they aren't trained, so mine goes up as well...now we're in a pissing match as to who's responsible for what...then the insurance company jumps in..

 

The free market will save you. The private arbitration company your insurers select to hear your dispute will resolve your matters in a faster, fairer, cheaper, and more beneficial way than any government-run court could hope to.

 

 

I experienced this first hand. Sitting in a parked car, car not running, in a marked parking lot, completely withing the lines. Guy in the next car over backs out and his right front bumper rakes the complete left side of the parked car.

 

Who is at fault?

 

Your faster, fairer, cheaper way determined the parked car owner was 10% at fault under the concept of "comparative negligence". Not sorry if this sounds bitter. It was just so obviously wrong.

 

There are certain basic services that should never be privatized. The US Armed forces, state and local police protection just to name a couple. While it is obvious to many here that fire protection is not one of those services, I think they are and I happily pay my property taxes so that a truck shows up when there is a fire.

 

The natural tension between those who believe in rugged individualism on the one extreme and complete government intervention on the other extreme plays out daily in our society.

 

The sad part is when it becomes not about policy, but about personality. Watching the TV ads for the Missouri election shows that we no longer vote based on ideas. Each side spends millions to show what a bad person the other candidate is and why you should vote against them.

 

The greatest threat to our country is not external. Our society will collapse when those with the most money buy the government. I think that day is very near.