Seriously what the hell is wrong with the world today?

[Master Rudy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001

Firefighters in Tennessee have just let a man's house burn because said man forgot to pay his annual fee to the town he lives near. This guy lost everything he owned as well as his three dogs and a cat. The kicker? His neighbor's home also caught fire but since he paid the fee the firefighters helped him and simply watched the other place burn.

Granted the fire started in a rather dumb way but come on! Put the guy's house out and worry about the fee/fines later. What if a person was trapped inside the place? Are you just going to let them burn to death because they didn't pay the fee? That could be considered manslaughter/murder in some places!

Thoughts on the matter?

[Jeff]

I'm more shocked that they actually had to pay a fee for firefighting service. Most rural places have VFDs for handling fires outside of incorporated towns. Heck, in some cases, incorporated towns don't even have a paid fire department and have a volunteer one instead.

[Master Rudy]

Glenn Beck

Real intellegent reply there.....exactly what does he have to do with any of this?:confused:

[Blademaster]

I blame Republicans.

No, seriously, this is a fucking disgrace. How dare these chintzy hicks call themselves 'firefighters.' It's not like they're flat-broke and have to charge hundreds or thousands of dollars to keep their shit running. It was SEVENTY-FIVE dollars! The firemen chose to ignore this man's home, possessions, and pets - no doubt a 6-digit sum in total and a countless amount of sentimental value, love for those animals, memories - in favor of less money than it costs to buy a fucking blender.

And the worst part is that these shitheads refused to help him because they were 'following orders.' These spineless fucks actually LISTENED to the asshole who said to let the guy who missed his fucking fire bill burn. I'd have grabbed a hose and sprayed that fucking house if it sent me to jail. There just aren't enough words to convey my fucking disgust and anger at these money-grubbing self-serving scumbags who didn't even have enough morality amongst them for ONE person to try and help these poor fucking rednecks.

[Telume]

There just.... are no words.... seriously. What if it had been a person, like his wife or, hell, a 1 year old baby?

[Heald]

Looks like there are some things the free market doesn't fix.

Also, can replies in Misc be at least one real sentence please? Thanks.

[Unbraced]

Real intellegent reply there.....exactly what does he have to do with any of this?:confused:

He's the new michael jackson. We can blame him for everything

[Asilynne]

My sisters a republican and also a certified firefighter and I can honestly say she would not have let the place burn even if she was fighting it alone. Individuals are stupid, you cant just blame entire groups.

And those firefighters should seriously see some jailtime for failing in what should be their sworn duty. Its a crime for people like Michael Vick to kill dogs, and by not helping when they should have they were responsible for those animals deaths. Not only that but they let this mans entire life burn! This is a clear example of how whats legal isnt always whats right.

[crown34]

What the fuck is this?! You don't pay and fee and they let your house burn down! Like Blade I'm too pissed to think straight... this is bullshit...

[Bear]

So what happens when the firefighters save the house when the family didn't pay the fee? Then everyone gets to see that "oh, I can just not pay and they'll save my house anyway". Pretty soon nobody is paying and the fire department cannot run. What happens to the livelihood of those firefighters and their families when they aren't getting paid? For most of them this IS their source of income, so what then?

This is why they did not act on this matter. This is also a prime example of why Firefighting should be A) strictly volunteer or B) directly funded by the government/tax money.

In either case, yell all you want about morals and disgust, but at least realize there was logic behind this decision. Don't just fly off the handle about a few of the circumstances and ignore the context of the situation.

I'm not saying it isn't a tragedy and a shame, I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's like people who refuse to buy insurance, then when they get sick they suddenly want to get insurance and expect it to cover their problem. That's not how it works. Is $75 a year really all that much to ask? That's like $3 out of every paycheck you make just to make sure your house will be doused in a fire. Good deal if you ask me. Sometimes examples need to be made to prove to people how serious a situation is, even if they seem harsh.

[Shadow Wolf]

I really am at a loss for words on this one. I can't believe that "common people" (and by common people, I mean us) have more values that a few firefighters who couldn't lift a hose and save another person's property and lives (even if it's an animal, but it's still a living creature). Some people sacrifice values such as love, kindness and emphaty because they're just following orders... damn!

EDIT: I can't believe that almost 54,500 people said that his property should have burned down because he didn't pay. Is money more important that life? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???

[Blademaster]

So what happens when the firefighters save the house when the family didn't pay the fee? Then everyone gets to see that "oh, I can just not pay and they'll save my house anyway". Pretty soon nobody is paying and the fire department cannot run. What happens to the livelihood of those firefighters and their families when they aren't getting paid? For most of them this IS their source of income, so what then?

People forget things. It's not like this is a regular occurrence in that town. Not as far as I read, anyway.


In either case, yell all you want about morals and disgust, but at least realize there was logic behind this decision.

Bear, the argument you're making treads on dangerous ground. Many of the worst crimes man has ever committed have had logic - in one way or another - backing them. The argument of logic being present can be very easily overshadowed by who said logic is being used by.


Don't just fly off the handle about a few of the circumstances and ignore the context of the situation.

1. Man forgets to pay fire bill.
2. Man's house catches fire.
3. Firefighters don't give a shit.
4. The neighbor's house catches fire.
5. Firefighters rush right over.
6. Victim of fire and neighbor both plead for firemen to help.
7. Firemen say "Lol no dickhead, shoulda paid your fire insurance!".
8. Man now has no house and his four pets are dead.
9. Firemen go back to station.
10. Firemen leave work, go back to their homes, and get a good night's sleep because they did their job.


I'm not saying it isn't a tragedy and a shame, I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's like people who refuse to buy insurance, then when they get sick they suddenly want to get insurance and expect it to cover their problem. That's not how it works. Is $75 a year really all that much to ask? That's like $3 out of every paycheck you make just to make sure your house will be doused in a fire. Good deal if you ask me. Sometimes examples need to be made to prove to people how serious a situation is, even if they seem harsh.

The flaw I find in your argument is the hypocrisy underlying it. You're only playing devil's advocate because this atrocity was, by whatever fucked-up definition you want to bestow upon the word, 'legal.' The law said what these spineless, greedy hicks did was right.

The law ALSO says that in a situation where a crime is being committed, a person that is entirely able to help the victim and yet chooses not to for whatever reason is an ACCOMPLICE to that crime. Now, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that a fucking fire department deciding to not save a man's home, let the fire worsen, let innocent animals DIE, and ultimately leave the man homeless, all out of what essentially amounts to greed at worst and a very fucked-up sense of duty at best, is guilty of SOME crime.

But your advocation doesn't care about that. Because MONEY says these assholes were in the right. Because being accomplices to MURDER only counts when the victims - four of them in this case - are human. It's all law and money doing the talking. And no human decency whatso-fucking-ever. Try and defend these scumbags all you want: They came to a burning man's house and didn't help him, let his pets die, and left him homeless.

And as shitty as I feel saying this, if they'd helped him, they would have gotten their fucking seventy-five dollars from him. And they'd have gotten it once a year for a LOT more years... By not helping him, they just lost a customer and fucked themselves out of their precious money anyway.

I'm sorry, Bear. I don't mean to rant at you, but the simple matter is... Well... Fuck all of this.

[Heald]

This whole thing makes any sensible economist cry. Many things should be provided by the free-market, if not most things; fire-fighting and rescue is not one of them. As Bear rightly pointed out, if the firefighters did fight the fire of someone who paid on-the-spot, then the subscriptions would stop and people would pay at point-of-service, although this would mean either fees would drastically rise or the fire service would be so underfunded it would either fold or be completely ineffectual. On the other hand, if they don't accept payment as point-of-service...well, you get shit like this.

The absolute kicker is that this was BOUND to happen, and there is no win situation in the long run. There is only one sensible option if you want everyone to be happy in the long-run: make the $75 subscription compulsory for all in the area and fine those who refuse and give everyone coverage. I am a proponent of the free market as much as the next guy, but this is one area where the free market is bound to fail, and evidentially has failed.

There is one lesson here though: if you knowingly live in an area where fire-fighting is provided for subscription-payers only, and your son wants to burn garbage at your house, you goddamn double-check that you're covered.

[Bear]

EDIT: I'm retarded, he did in fact "forget" to pay the bill. That being said...


I'm not being hypocritical. I love animals, especially cats, and the fact that they had to die for this example to be made disturbs me greatly. Despite that, I am doing my level best to look at this from all angles, not just the emotional ones. I'm just trying to point out that, just as it was seemingly unfair for such damage to be done to a family, it's equally unfair to assume that it was all done for money alone, and it happened because the firefighters were greedy/heartless/hicks/assholes/douchemissiles/whatever. For all we know, Firefighting was the sole source of income for every one of those men and their families, and they were ordered to not act with threats on their jobs. We can all sound righteous by talking about how we'd never let a person or animal in danger go unhelped, but when the chips are down and we have to choose between our family's livelihood and the safety of an animal, what do you think most people would decide? I know it's painful to realize, but I guarantee you there are very few people who would take that risk.

Human nature is dark and deceitful, and there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. People just aren't willing to make sacrifices to help others anymore. Sad right?

[Katie]

Some things...

1. The family could have "forgot" to pay the optional fee, or simply opted out of it on the grounds that most homes simply don't ever end up needing the services of fire departments. If your family doesn't have $75 then well fuck, they can't pay it now can they? (these families exist, it's not as simple as the retarded "it's like dropping your morning coffee purchase habit!" analogy) Or they could be "I don't want no fees paid to no gubbment services bet they couldn't even put it out right" douchebags.
I know the article says he says he forgot, but when you're being interviewed for the news that's what everyone would say. No one likes admitting to being poor, and no ARGH GUBBERMENT high-horse riders want to admit they were wrong/idiotic.

2. It's not the firefighters' faults, it's the department/chief's for making the decision.

3. They said they would have acted had a person been trapped inside.

4. It's a good thing they "stood and watched" because they were able to prevent it from spreading.

5. Like previously stated, if they helped this family for free/$75 then no one would ever pay the fee again. Fire departments need money to operate. If no one paid, they wouldn't be able to save a single home, a spreading neighborhood fire, or a full orphanage no matter how "right" it would be for them to!

Anyway, my final verdict is I would prefer to see a mandatory tax in all areas to cover all emergency services rather than the gamble of an optional fee that no one expects to ever pay off. But since that JUST SMELLS TOO MUCH LIKE SOCIALISM CON FLABBIT, it should work just like emergency rooms: if you don't have insurance, we'll still help you but you are going to pay out the ass for it.

The only thing the department did wrong was reject the man's offer of paying any amount for help. It's not the issue of just $75, it's the dangerous precedent it would have set. Still a really sad situation all around :(

[Leon-IH]

So what happens when the firefighters save the house when the family didn't pay the fee? Then everyone gets to see that "oh, I can just not pay and they'll save my house anyway". Pretty soon nobody is paying and the fire department cannot run.

Using your brain would dictate that you save the guys house then slug him with a hefty bill, similar to how the Australian ambulance works; if you're a member, it's cheap if you need it - if you're not a member, it's costly as hell if you need it but they will still save you in the immediate.

[kazr]

This whole thing makes any sensible economist cry. Many things should be provided by the free-market, if not most things; fire-fighting and rescue is not one of them. As Bear rightly pointed out, if the firefighters did fight the fire of someone who paid on-the-spot, then the subscriptions would stop and people would pay at point-of-service, although this would mean either fees would drastically rise or the fire service would be so underfunded it would either fold or be completely ineffectual. On the other hand, if they don't accept payment as point-of-service...well, you get shit like this.

The absolute kicker is that this was BOUND to happen, and there is no win situation in the long run. There is only one sensible option if you want everyone to be happy in the long-run: make the $75 subscription compulsory for all in the area and fine those who refuse and give everyone coverage. I am a proponent of the free market as much as the next guy, but this is one area where the free market is bound to fail, and evidentially has failed.

There is one lesson here though: if you knowingly live in an area where fire-fighting is provided for subscription-payers only, and your son wants to burn garbage at your house, you goddamn double-check that you're covered.

This has nothing to do with "the free market".

[kurai]

It is related to "the free market" if you make the assumption that basic services were being provided through user fees on an opt-in basis for philosophical reasons, as opposed to funding through mandatory taxation (which would necessarily be state intervention). Of course, it is obviously untrue that this non-intervention provided for any sort of free competition for the provision of fire protection services, but this is because the reason for the fee is probably not based on principle, but rather the practical concern that this rural guy lives too far away from town to fund a nearby station, so he has to pay for access to out-of-area services (this is frequently how it works for rural servicing of any kind).

Also, it is mildly amusing that the topic begins with asking what is wrong with the world "today", since this sort of problem is one of the more famous scams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures#Marcus_Licin ius_Crassus) of history.

[Heald]

This has nothing to do with "the free market".
Yes it does, and even if it doesn't, it still doesn't make my point any less valid.

[kazr]

There is no reason that they could have helped this guy's life not be ruined, then enacted legislation that would heavily fine any person who used this service without paying the yearly $75 dollars. Instead the entire family is completely fucked and not just this dude and his wife, but their children are going to be feeling the repercussions for decades.

Hopefully they had home owner's insurance.

[Telume]

There is no reason that they could have helped this guy's life not be ruined, then enacted legislation that would heavily fine any person who used this service without paying the yearly $75 dollars. Instead the entire family is completely fucked and not just this dude and his wife, but their children are going to be feeling the repercussions for decades.

Hopefully they had home owner's insurance.

I'd take it and head to the next town over, that's one less resident to deal with for them.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

Seriously, those pets. Fucking savages.