• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the fire department right or wrong?

Right or wrong?


  • Total voters
    42

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
20,959
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Was the fire department right or wrong when the let a home burn to the ground because the owner had not paid the $75 fee?
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
They were wrong. Someone could have died, and the blood would have been on their hands. They should have fought the fire, and charged them after.

Though, this kind of system shouldn't be in place anyway. Things like these, should not be privatized.
 
Last edited:

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Was the fire department right or wrong when the let a home burn to the ground because the owner had not paid the $75 fee?

Wrong. They are paid to fight fires not play politics. I always thought the bill came after the fire not another government tax.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
20,959
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
They were wrong. Someone could have died, and the blood would have been on their hands.

I'm guessing they knew no one was in the house.

I said "right" because it was the duty of the homeowner to pay the fee for the service. If the fire department just puts out fires for everyone no matter if they paid or not, then who would pay? Without that fee, there would be no fire department. Want your house protected by the fire department? Pay the fee. If you can't pay the fee, ask for help.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm guessing they knew no one was in the house.

I said "right" because it was the duty of the homeowner to pay the fee for the service. If the fire department just puts out fires for everyone no matter if they paid or not, then who would pay? Without that fee, there would be no fire department. Want your house protected by the fire department? Pay the fee. If you can't pay the fee, ask for help.

Did they know everyone was out? What if there was someone in there, would they still have sat there? It's scary to think about.

These kind of services should be paid for in taxes, and should be a government service, plain and simple.
 

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They were completely in the right for the exact reasons I laid out in the actual thread about this story.

...and so far, the only opposition I have seen comes from people who aren't bothering to read the facts.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
20,959
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Did they know everyone was out? What if there was someone in there, would they still have sat there? It's scary to think about.

These kind of services should be paid for in taxes, and should be a government service, plain and simple.

I cannot imagine a fireman who knew someone was in the house, but still refused to put the fire out.

Yes, he should've paid for the service like he was supposed to. It's like insurance. You can't just not pay for insurance and then when your house is burning rush to the insurance office and say you'll pay for one month right now if they'll insure your burning house.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm guessing they knew no one was in the house.

I said "right" because it was the duty of the homeowner to pay the fee for the service. If the fire department just puts out fires for everyone no matter if they paid or not, then who would pay? Without that fee, there would be no fire department. Want your house protected by the fire department? Pay the fee. If you can't pay the fee, ask for help.

Aren't they run by the government? Let the budget paid for with taxes pay it.

When I was young my uncle was fire chief of the local volunteer fire dept. They had ways of asking for money and had things like a picnic to make money. They did not tax people.
 

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Aren't they run by the government? Let the budget paid for with taxes pay it.

When I was young my uncle was fire chief of the local volunteer fire dept. They had ways of asking for money and had things like a picnic to make money. They did not tax people.

Wrong. This was NOT a volunteer FD.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I cannot imagine a fireman who knew someone was in the house, but still refused to put the fire out.

Yes, he should've paid for the service like he was supposed to. It's like insurance. You can't just not pay for insurance and then when your house is burning rush to the insurance office and say you'll pay for one month right now if they'll insure your burning house.

That's my issue with this. There shouldn't have to be that fee. The firefighter's should be paid by the government to protect the people from fires. If you call the fire department, they should help you out. No matter what.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
20,959
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's my issue with this. There shouldn't have to be that fee. The firefighter's should be paid by the government to protect the people from fires. If you call the fire department, they should help you out. No matter what.

That's a separate issue. In THIS scenario, there was a fee. He chose to not pay it, so he got no service. Makes perfect sense to me.
 

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's my issue with this. There shouldn't have to be that fee. The firefighter's should be paid by the government to protect the people from fires. If you call the fire department, they should help you out. No matter what.

Please....PLEASE. Read the articles, it pains me to repeat myself so much. :2razz:

The fire fighters are paid by a city government...to protect their city. Joe Cheapass and his burning home are not in the city.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Please....PLEASE. Read the articles, it pains me to repeat myself so much. :2razz:

The fire fighters are paid by a city government...to protect their city. Joe Cheapass and his burning home are not in the city.

Please, thats like saying a cop shouldn't stop a rape because it's happening outside his jurisdiction.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
That's a separate issue. In THIS scenario, there was a fee. He chose to not pay it, so he got no service. Makes perfect sense to me.

But if they knew he didn't pay the fee, why did they dispatch to the scene? They responded, so they should have put out the fire, if they wanted to bill them after, fine, but don't watch the house burn. A burning house is a danger, and the danger should have been eliminated.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I cannot imagine a fireman who knew someone was in the house, but still refused to put the fire out.

Yes, he should've paid for the service like he was supposed to. It's like insurance. You can't just not pay for insurance and then when your house is burning rush to the insurance office and say you'll pay for one month right now if they'll insure your burning house.

By not putting the fire out they but the neighbors houses at risk
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's my issue with this. There shouldn't have to be that fee. The firefighter's should be paid by the government to protect the people from fires. If you call the fire department, they should help you out. No matter what.

Here's the deal with this specific case.

The house fire was outside the taxing jurisdiction of the city, the city did provide fire service to county residents for a fee but it has to be optional because of the tax issue.
Now if they still serviced the area while taking payments, after the fact, the city FD would go bust in a short time.

They did state that, if there were lives in danger, that they would have intervened.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
20,959
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But if they knew he didn't pay the fee, why did they dispatch to the scene? They responded, so they should have put out the fire, if they wanted to bill them after, fine, but don't watch the house burn. A burning house is a danger, and the danger should have been eliminated.

I believe they were protecting the houses near his house.
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
They were completely in the right for the exact reasons I laid out in the actual thread about this story.

...and so far, the only opposition I have seen comes from people who aren't bothering to read the facts.

What if there were kids in the house?

BTW - the firemen think they did the WRONG thing.
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That's a separate issue. In THIS scenario, there was a fee. He chose to not pay it, so he got no service. Makes perfect sense to me.

Not a fee a tax by the local government
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Here's the deal with this specific case.

The house fire was outside the taxing jurisdiction of the city, the city did provide fire service to county residents for a fee but it has to be optional because of the tax issue.
Now if they still serviced the area while taking payments, after the fact, the city FD would go bust in a short time.

They did state that, if there were lives in danger, that they would have intervened.

Well thats a problem with the taxing jurisdiction. IMO, everyone should have protection provided by the police, and fire departments.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well thats a problem with the taxing jurisdiction. IMO, everyone should have protection provided by the police, and fire departments.

I agree, in this scenario though, the county and it's residents haven't lobbied to at least start a FD. :?

Even a lot of remote Alaskan towns have a FD.
 

Helvidius

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
735
Reaction score
325
Location
Good ol' US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But if they knew he didn't pay the fee, why did they dispatch to the scene? They responded, so they should have put out the fire, if they wanted to bill them after, fine, but don't watch the house burn. A burning house is a danger, and the danger should have been eliminated.

They responded to his neighbor who did pay the $75 annual fee. The neighbor was concerned the fire would spread to their house so they called the fire department. The fire department is in charge of a nearby city, not this rural area.
 

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So it was run by local government. This means the government is not protecting citizens

Wrong again. The local government doesn't provide any services at all. The FD is from a neighboring city.
 
Top Bottom