Free-Market Fire Protection

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by turgy22, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. turgy22 Nothing Special

    It happened again.

    I'm having a bit more trouble feeling sorry for these people, considering they live in the exact same area where it happened before, so they should have at least been aware of the consequences of not having fire protection. Then again, I still feel that if the firefighters are showing up at these people's houses, they might as well do what they can and send a bill for the work. Quotes like this irritate me: "Firefighters arrived on the scene but as the fire raged, they simply stood by and did nothing." Also, the fact that the couple felt compelled to go back inside their burning home to save their possessions really adds to the absurdity of the situation, considering that, had they then become trapped inside the house, the firefighters would have helped them. Thus, in order to save a little money (and/or make their point), lives are being put in danger.
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    But firefighters don't save possessions. If they put out the fire, more possessions *might* be saved or salvagable, but c'mon, are *you* seriously going to put *your* life in danger to save some possessions? Possessions can usually be replaced while lives can't. The residents chose to put their own lives in danger at that point.

    And I don't think firefighters want to get into the whole "billing after the fact" scenario. What if the residents refuse to pay afterwards? And then their house catches on fire again? So now they're "delinquite" (sp?) and they still want firefighter services?
  3. turgy22 Nothing Special

    You make a good point. Indeed, the firefighters' job is to save lives, not property. But to a certain extent their job is to save people from their own stupidity. I just find it odd that if those people had walked into that burning house and not come out, the firefighters would have been compelled to walk in after them. Seems like a more sensible solution would be to attempt to extinguish the flame so that the people would not feel the need to go into the house in the first place.

    I also feel that it's necessary to reiterate my point that the firefighters are already at the fire and just watched the house burn down. How long does it take for a house to burn down versus the time it takes to extinguish a burning house? It seems to me that the firefighters would get home faster if they try to put the fire out. And with regards to compensation, obviously there's no guarantee of payment, but they're already there and by doing nothing, they're guaranteed to get nothing. Their odds of compensation are much higher if some effort was put forth to save the home.
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    How do you mean that "their job is to save people from their own stupidity"? They put out fires, save cats :), investigate gas leaks, etc.... doing stuff that might cause harm to people, but not saving people from themselves.

    It would seem the order of priorities if you didn't pay is life > money > possessions.

    It would be the sensible solution, but we all know the society isn't sensible. That's why we have seemingly obvious warning labels on everything because people do the dumbest things and then try to blame others for it.

    Beats me how long it takes, but depending on where the house was, lots of water was saved, perhaps some weird hose hookup was avoided where hydrants weren't available, etc. And the firefighters are getting "paid" whether they're sitting at the fire or at home - at the fire, they're watching to save lives, at home they're doing whatever they do while waiting for a call. I'm guessing that if a call came in from a paying fire customer, they would leave to go to that one though.

    Not sure about the odds of compensation since depending on the state of the house and possessions after the time of saving, most money would probably be put towards repairing/replacing/dealing with the aftermath of the fire.
  5. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    Jumping backwards a bit, keep in mind that even if a 'volunteer' fire station was located in that county, there are still a lot of expenses. From the cost of the trucks, hoses, etc...down to firefighter's protective gear, fuel, water, and other items used in every emergency. And then there is the training of the volunteer personel (which is a bit more involved than one might think). And liability insurance that the station has to carry on every volunteer. Radio dispatchers, FCC regulations on radio traffic (usually expanded bandwidth on county-wide emergency frequencies), and so on and so forth. I can see where a small rural county could not afford the start up costs for such services locally and would benefit from contracting it out to other cities/counties.

    But, be that as it may, consider the ultimate point that really has not been made here. If a person does not like the local laws and regulations, remember that we still live in America, a free country, and that person does have the right to relocate. Especially enabled as said person in this scenario would own (presumably) the house and land and could sell it to enable him/herself the funds for said relocation.

    Also consider the typical mentality of people in general now-a-days. We live in a society that wants everything given to them without any effort on thier part being required. This could be considered a classic example of said mentality. Remember one of the first "rules" that the settlers had when arriving to this continent? If you don't work, you don't eat.

Share This Page