No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[Asher]

Tennesse also doesn't have San Diego's fire codes!

This could've been so much better if they did.

[Dinner]

Canada is more of a wilderness compared to the US. Compare the population density.

You cannot serve people who live 4 people per 100 km^2 with full-service fire houses.

You do what we do here. Rural areas have lower legal requirements as far as police or fire service coverage go but some level of universal service must be provided for all areas. Yes, that means if you live in the boonies it might take half an hour for the fire truck to arrive but you won't have the situation where a truck shows up and decides to just watch your house burn.

[Dinner]

Tennesse also doesn't have San Diego's fire codes!

This could've been so much better if they did.

Indeed.

[ColdWizard]

How to live in rural Tennessee:
Lesson #1: Learn to properly set your **** on fire without setting all your **** on fire.
Lesson #2: Learn to not let people set your **** on fire unless they have passed Lesson #1.
Lesson #3: Learn to remember to pay your fire service fee in case you fail Lesson #1 and Lesson #2.

[rah]

Yes, that means if you live in the boonies it might take half an hour for the fire truck to arrive

That's worse than worthless, having the fire truck show up after you house has finished burning down.

[Wiglaf]

While I agree with all those that state that the city firefighters had no legal obligation to put out this fire and It's the owners fault for the fire in the first place and neglecting to pay the fee, and from a pr standpoint it probably would have been better if they hadn't bother to even go. (which would have been hard since they were obligated to deal with it if it spread), But once they were on-site with their equipment, how could they not have helped. Moral obligation/charity is not really part of the equation for me. I'd have an obligation to my fellow man to help, and couldn't sit by and do nothing. I consider those that did schmucks.

This is like saying you have no obligation to help a homeless person unless you make the decision to pass him on the street. Completely incoherent. (And contradictory. "Moral obligation/charity is not really part of the equation for me. I'd have an obligation to my fellow man to help.." )

Canadian yellow book consultant: Socialized medical care, which not everyone needs or can get, has far greater administrative costs than emergency services, which everyone needs and most can easily get.

[Asher]

I don't need access to the police, and I've never needed access to fire services. I have needed medical services.

YOU ARE WRONG, SIR.

[Wiglaf]

You do need them or there'd be no consequences for robbing you and taking your Xbox and gay porn dvds, which you watch instead of helping the homeless.

[Asher]

The consequence of robbing me is an assraping, a beatdown, and a very pointed lecture about ethics!

As for gay porn DVDs? How ****ing stupid do you think I am? I have a multi-terabyte NAS dedicated to gay porn, not antiquated DVDs. UGH! DVDS ARE NOT EVEN HIGH DEF.

[Wiglaf]

I guess I have an obligation to answer that since I happened to read it. Right Rah. You ******.

ASHER YOU ARE DISGUSTING, A HYPO CRIT WHO SAYS HE GIVES MONEY TO SHELTERS BUT CLEALY ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF YOUR INCOME Why not give them more than you are? BECAUSE YOU ARE LEZY! LIKE THE FIREMAN RIGHT?! IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BE BTOHERED TO GO TO PAYPAL.COM AND SEND THE EXTRA MONEY

That makes YOU NO DIFFERENT FROM THE FIREMEN IN YOUR PORN BLURAYS

[Aeson]

I ask all the beggars on the street for their paypal, so I can donate. They never give it, maybe they're worried I'll sign their email up for spam lists? It's so hard to be a good person these days with all the jaded beggars in the world

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm also in favor of government buying out drug patents, BTW.

I'm not in favor of blaming drug companies for not giving away their drugs for free to people who "forgot" to buy health insurance...

Are you sure about that?

Initially, I might think that would be a great idea. But if the government buys drug patents, then the government has essentially unlimited negotiating power with the drug companies, which will tend to force the price low and reduce incentives to make good drugs. Also, government could not possibly be as good as the free market at selecting drugs, so politically unpopular drugs (birth control etc) might end up not being available. It also places government in charge of a huge sector of the economy, and as Kathleen Sebelius demonstrated, that can have some interesting consequences for freedom, in particular freedom of speech.

I understand that insurance tends to do this as well though to a lesser extent, but I've mentioned before that I think the way insurance works in the US at the moment (where it is for the most part essentially a debit card that only works on medicine) is an awful system.

[Hauldren Collider]

The moral of the story here is there are no intelligent people in Tennessee.

No one in the county, no one in the city, and certainly no one in that house.

I was born in Nasvhille. Lived there for 7 years.

[Asher]

Yes.

[Hauldren Collider]

Which, of course, is the problematic part. Basic government services (police, fire, etc) should never be optional and should be universally provided for everyone. If civilized states can do this then wtf can't Tennessee? If this level of retardation is how low they've sunk then why not just make police coverage optional? What's that you say? Police services are a basic government function? Yes, yes they are just like fire services especially since fires spread and can easily get out of control and end up damaging public property or other people's property because you let the fire get big because you decided not to put out a fire at someone's home. This is a basic public safety issue.

Police services CAN'T be optional because of the equal protection clause*. Duh.

*Lawyers: Isn't there some rule of law clause in the original constitution that would cover this as well?