So a fire fighter service let some guys home burn down destroying all he owns and killing his pets. All because the guy forgot to pay a $75 fee. I agree with his son and would have likely punch out the chief myself. What are your thoughts?
Also just to add a bit of conversation do you think this is comparable to the way US health care service is run?
(Oct. 6) -- A small rural community in western Tennessee is outraged and the fire chief is nursing a black eye after firefighters stood by and watched a mobile home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 municipal fee.
South Fulton city firefighters -- equipped with trucks, hoses and other firefighting equipment -- didn't intervene to save Gene Cranick's doublewide trailer home when it caught fire last week. But they did arrive on the scene to protect the house of a neighbor, who had paid his fire subscription fee.
"I just forgot to pay my $75," Cranick told ABC News. "I did it last year, the year before. ... It slipped my mind."
Later that day, Cranick's son Timothy went to the fire station to complain, and punched the fire chief in the face.
"He just cold-cocked him," Police Chief Andy Crocker told the Union City Daily Messenger. The younger Cranick was arrested and charged with felony aggravated assault, and South Fulton Fire Chief David Wilds was treated and released from a hospital, Crocker said.
Firefighters in South Fulton city are under orders to respond only to fire calls within their city limits, as well as to surrounding Obion County, but only to homes there where people have signed up for a fire subscription service.
Because Cranick hadn't paid his fee, firefighters doused the border of his neighbor's property to protect that house in case the flames spread, but wouldn't help him. He lost all his possessions, plus three dogs and a cat.
"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC.
Sponsored Links The fire began when Cranick's grandson set fire to some trash near the house, and the flames leapt up. Cranick said he told the 911 operator that he'd pay whatever fee was necessary, but it was too late.
"I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do," South Fulton City Manager Jeff Vowell told the Messenger. "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
But one firefighting expert said the fee system isn't fair to homeowners or firefighters.
"Professional, career firefighters shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said in statement excerpted by MSNBC. "They get in their trucks and go."
Really it comes down to whether or not economic libertarianism can actually function in the real world. As this incident shows, it cannot.
Good straw man argument, one of the better ones I've seen.
"Oh look, a small hole in the system that had an accident! Oh no! This must mean the whole system is absolutely flawed and can not function!"
Or, maybe it means the policy needs to be changed. Oh look, local communities thinking for themselves. Of course, you wouldn't understand anything about that.
Or, maybe it means the policy needs to be changed. Oh look, local communities thinking for themselves. Of course, you wouldn't understand anything about that.
Oh look you've blown things out of proportion again!
Point here is the firefighters are to blame. As I said before it takes a special type of person to watch a house burn down, and orders be dam*ed
Or, maybe it means the policy needs to be changed. Oh look, local communities thinking for themselves. Of course, you wouldn't understand anything about that.
I was talking about libertarianism, not communitarianism. There is a big difference, especially when you consuider libertarians care (or at least pay) only for themselves. Libertarians believe any form of social service is harmful, which is stupid and black and white.
I still think this was simply a poorly designed system. As mentioned prior it should have been a tax built in by both legislatures of both districts. In addition, if the current system is the result of local communities thinking for themselves, then I don't think a little centralism hurts anyone in this scenario.
As mentioned prior it should have been a tax built in by both legislatures of both districts.[quote]
This might have been explained, but how in the world is this not covered by local taxes? This concerns me because in our local paper today, they released the salary of the new city planner. We are a town of 75,000 +/-. Her salary is just over $200,000. I mean that is unbelievable. City official positions should not be getting paid in an upper class bracket.
As mentioned prior it should have been a tax built in by both legislatures of both districts.
This might have been explained, but how in the world is this not covered by local taxes? This concerns me because in our local paper today, they released the salary of the new city planner. We are a town of 75,000 +/-. Her salary is just over $200,000. I mean that is unbelievable. City official positions should not be getting paid in an upper class bracket.
That is, what, the same caliber as Congressman or Supreme Court Justices?? Holy cow! This is local government we are talking about here.... >_>
I still think this was simply a poorly designed system. As mentioned prior it should have been a tax built in by both legislatures of both districts.
Was the man in question manually paying the fire dept. $75? That's what this story is leading me to believe. My folks don't manually pay the electric company and phone company separately. If it was collected into one bill and have the excise company sort the payments towards the companies, this and other messes would have been avoided.
Oh, and that rant up there? My morning consists of breakfast and a small dose of prescription stimulants so I don't completely lose focus (or hope) during classes. My post up there reflected that :-P
I was talking about libertarianism, not communitarianism. There is a big difference, especially when you consuider libertarians care (or at least pay) only for themselves. Libertarians believe any form of social service is harmful, which is stupid and black and white.
Libertarians believe a few social services should be required. They believe that most social services should be optional.
I shall say to you what wolf wrongly pointed towards me:
Oh look you've blown things out of proportion again!
If you have a flat tire on your car, you change the tire. You don't buy a brand new car, you just buy new tires.
Rather than change the whole economic system to fix one problem that rarely occurs, just change the local policies since it's the local policies that have failed.
I said it before and I shall say it again. They neighboring county probably should pay the extra 75 dollars a year through their taxes rather than in person or through check.
Point here is the firefighters are to blame. As I said before it takes a special type of person to watch a house burn down, and orders be dam*ed
I disagree. If you make your living as a firefighter, and you are told to not put out a particular fire, you are going to follow that order because your livelihood depends on it. Who is going to feed your kids or pay your mortgage when you get fired for disobeying your orders?
They believe that most social services should be optional.
In which case it's not a social service, but a private good. Really I don't want to get into this here in too much depth, but there are many public/merit goods which would not get provided by the free market which libertarians conveniently and naively forget. They are just as utopian as the socialists they so despise in my opinion.
I said it before and I shall say it again. They neighboring county probably should pay the extra 75 dollars a year through their taxes rather than in person or through check.
Which is what I suggested. That's the thing. You're getting so pent up about people claiming socialism is the answer rather than acknowledging the flaws of libertarianism taken too far. I mean seriously, an optional fire department charge? It just begs for stupid stuff like this to happen.
But to add another point, yes this is a local policy falure, but it is of the rabidly anti tax . Either put up with retarded occurences like this and stick to your libertarian principles instead of deeming them newsworthy outrages, or pay more tax to create publicly funded services.
That's horrible. Maybe instead of letting it burn, they could have saved it and took some possessions as collateral until the fees were paid rather than let a house nurn down and lose life.
When I read this article last week, all I could think is what is humanity coming to? The point where someone calls upon you for help because you have become a professional at the service they are requesting and you just sit there and watch everything they have worked for burn? Could that not have been worked out after saving the house. SMH what's going on in this world!?!
It's also considered a form of social anarchism. Research a bit more before you make huge sweeping statements.
The terms are interchangeable. Some libertarians (which are sometimes anarchists) want social services even you have to work within the government to get it.
