NO ONE on du would vote FD optional nor allow SS privitized.

[seabeyond]

no one on du would vote for people to opt out paying taxes for a fire dept. no one thinks it is a good idea. every single person on du would vote that a tax should be put on the people to ensure fire services for every single person.

find one person, that feels it is a better idea to allow a person to chose to pay for the service or chose not to pay for the service. ONE person on du. ONE person advocating this style of govt.

until then, quit arguing that is what people are saying with this fire dept issue. it is a bogus argument.

the repugs want to give SS $ back to the people to invest themselves. EVERYONE on du thinks that is a bad idea. every. single. person. thinks that giving the money to people to invest is a poor decision and takes away the safety net.

if the nation opts to do this with ss, a person loses that money, that safety net, does the govt them provide the net all over again for that person?

there is a REAL issue today between the dems and the repugs. repugs dont. want. to pay. taxes.

they dont want to pay for schools. and look how that is working for us
they dont want to pay for libraries. how are we liking privatizing libraries for profit.

that is what the duers are arguing with the fire dept issue.

if you rephrase the argument to people wanting others to die, animals to die, a system that allows an opt out, you are being dishonest in the argument.

[RandomThoughts]

1. I have had relatives die, like most people.

I don't think I could want anyone to die, and thank Colbert for further thoughts on even the concepts of fear in that context.

There is a paradox in religion. It can have a draw of greatest love, the desire to be able to see past loved ones again. I know the thought of living without relatives that have or will pass on, is not an existence I would want to live in.

And those beliefs are very good, and should not be used to get people to hate or kill. So no, I do not wish death on anyone, but instead a way for existence large enough for eternal joy for everyone. If some can not find that joy, then they would be the least and there would have to be a way to find them, by many precepts and concepts in many beliefs.

People talk about imaginary friends, would not giving up such a concept be a form of imposing death on someone? Even if they lived on in your heart and memories?


A bit deep, but something to think about.

[KansasVoter]

2. I agree, but change the laws, do not blame the FD!!!

[seabeyond]

4. yes. i think this is an excellent example why the law should be changed. and

an excellent example why we need the SS safety net. and why we need taxes that demand all pay a part in the whole

[MannyGoldstein]

3. But many elected "Democrats" are working to slash Social Security

Sad.

I do agree that nobody on DU wants a FD to be optional.

[seabeyond]

5. yes. and it is really pissing me off. leave the fuckin SS alone. nt

[depakid]

6. Unfortunately, you're wrong- and the evidence is overwhelming on that

If the right person said it- or simply didn't oppose it, people would fall in line.

If the appropriate appeal were made, people would buy it.

If there seemed to be something in it for them (psychologically or monetarily) -just watch as the rationalizations fly.

[seabeyond]

8. i am wrong? you have duers saying opting out of service is a good idea?

you have duers saying killing animals and humans is a good idea?

you have duers saying SS should be privatized?

show me where i am wrong.

[depakid]

11. Saying it's a "good idea" and assenting in inevitable consequences are the same thing

I never thought that failing to hold to account:

torturers, those who would deny due process, habeas corpus, or engage in domestic spying- banksters who've stolen billions (or even those who bragged about stock churning on TV) -or those who willfully distribute contaminated food- or willfully violate mine safety laws, repeatedly killing workers- or corrupt public officials throughout government

Would have received such widespread support here either.

As I said- it all (and only) depends on who's doing it- and what the appeals are.

-as to the other matters, you've seen for yourself on these threads what many people's attitudes are.

Believe me, if the right person(s) came out and said: "we need privatized Medicare or Social Security, etc., because __________," there'd be considerable support expressed- with innumerable links, right here on this forum.

And right alongside decrials of anyone- regardless of their credentials- who had the temerity to object.

[seabeyond]

13. good idea to let people die = opting out of paying for service has consequences? nt

[depakid]

15. That would seem to be the gist of some of the arguments posted

Don't you think?

You and I have had a few spirited colloquies over the years (mostly about differing interpretations of feminist issues, as I recall). But those are, I think, on a somewhat different level than some of the base considerations we've been seeing lately.

[seabeyond]

17. no depakid, i dont think that is what duers are saying. i think they are clearly saying,

they are not saying that and people ignore what is being said to put their spin on it to be angry.

from my point of view, i see this as an argument of teabaggers against dem.

for many on du, the see it as dems ok the burning of the house.

it is not the same argument.

[depakid]

26. Not sure I get your post, but it seems to me that you think there are a lot of teabaggers here

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

27. there are a lot of republicans and teabaggers that dont want to pay taxes. socialism

they think fire dept is socialism. they dont want to pay into a collective pool. this man did not want to pay for services. the county does not want to make citizens pay for services. it is an option. and it fails.

[NuttyFluffers]

29. you're arguing a long-term generality and seabeyond is arguing a specific.

and the most entertaining thing is both of you are right within your own argument, but essentially talking past each other.

this might not be the most fruitful discussion to have. it might be better to stay on topic, instead of musing the nature of humans to follow any leader right or wrong.

ps: seabeyond is contesting that DUers who argue that the city is not the "bad guy" here are not some sort of "big L" libertarians supporting this backassward form of county governance. which, with all the emotional appeal arguments -- who often seem didn't read the whole article (if you read the article, you wouldn't offer as an alternate solution to subscription fees the one that was just tried and deemed a resounding failure, now would you?) -- is creating a narrative that these DUers are heartless meanies that don't value life or appreciate the dangers of a fire. that is a short-sighted narrative based on falsehoods, emotional appeals, and glossed-over interpretation. THAT is what seabeyond is arguing about.

i myself am amused that bad critical reading and thinking skills raise their ugly heads again on DU. but, if i may be allowed to muse, it once again reinforces my hypothesis that all internet sites are not about real discussion, but more about cult of personality and vanity posts. it reminds me of the "OMG, heartless people in SF are walking over dying people cuz they think they're just homeless!!11!1!elevens!" fiasco of a topic; yeah, there's lots of people walking all over BART in SF around 2-4AM, yeah, sure, riiight... check the hours of operations again. *sigh* bad critical reading skills strike again.

[seabeyond]

60. thank you for the articulation on the subject. much valued. two days of this discussion

personally i find it fascinating in different perspectives. accused of being a libertarian when i am arguing the destruction of democratic safety net by implementing libertarian policy is the most amazing of those black is white, white is black discussions. they simply blow e away in fun.... and uniqueness of us as a people.

two days, and i still cannot position myself on allowing a house to burn. but i certainly can see the issues that have created these situations. and that is what i can discuss.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. If I lived in a such a backward place that allowed for voluntary FD subscriptions,

I think I'd buy two. Then I could call the fire department for some stupid schmuck who set his house on fire and "forgot" to buy his own subscription. Do you think they'd let me do such a thing?

[seabeyond]

9. wouldnt that be an interesting option. i would think twice about buying a house in such a place. nt

[LiberalAndProud]

10. I suppose they'd want an address.

In a perfect world, I'd hold it in reserve for where the fire is. I'd only cover one other property annually, but the address would need to vary from year to year, and only be filled in after the fire is already burning.

[BzaDem]

12. No, they are not behing dishonest in the argument at all. You are constructing a straw man.

Plenty of people here are perfectly fine with allowing his house to burn down, even though

a) The fire department was there for a neighbor
b) The homeowner offered to pay the full cost of putting out the fire

That is what people here said. Look it up. This is not an argument about whether we should have public fire departments. In THIS situation, there was no tax-funded fire department serving the area. People are attacking those who are OK with the house burning down in THIS situation. Their view deserves to be attacked.

You are constructing a straw man. You pretend that those with the above views are being attacked for not supporting publicly funded fire departments. That is not why they are being attacked. They are being attacked for being OK with the house burning down.

[seabeyond]

14. i never heard man offer full cost. i heard him offer the $75.

i am saying ot you, that what you are reading into what people are saying, ... is not.

my op IS what people are saying, and have repeated saying and are ignored and told they are all into the burning of the house.

to say... the man had the choice of buying the service or not. he chose not to buy the service. he took the risk. this is the consequence is NOT supporting the burning down of the house.

it is a reality. it is not support of

[BzaDem]

16. You are wrong. He offered to pay full cost. And you are still mischaracterizing their arguments.

"The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning."

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

People here are arguing that the what the fire department did was right. They are not simply arguing that this was the consequence -- they are arguing in SUPPORT of the consequence, as if the consequence is somehow a GOOD thing. This view deserves to not only be attacked, but attacked from every available rooftop. I'm glad there's still enough sanity left that people are attacking such a warped view.

[seabeyond]

18. NO they are not arguing what FD did was right. they are arguing what happens when people opt out of

services that should be taxed

[BzaDem]

19. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. This whole discussion is about whether what the FD did

was RIGHT. Not whether it happened. No one is arguing that the consequence didn't happen. They are arguing over whether the consequence proper in the situation.

Opting out of services should NOT have that consequence. Under any circumstance. The fire department can bill them for the full cost of putting out the fire. But they should NOT avoid putting out the fire under ANY circumstances. Just like ERs should not let people with gunshot wounds die on the street under ANY circumstances.

[seabeyond]

20. no. that is not the argument, hence why i made this post. YOUR argument is the right/wrong

of what the FD did.

our argument is people opting out paying for services.

that is the reason i did this post

we are arguing two different things and being accused of arguing something we are not

[BzaDem]

21. Your argument is that the consequence is appropriate if people opt-out.

And that is bullshit.

You are not simply arguing that the consequence exists. Everyone knows what happened, and no one is arguing over the chronology of events that happened. They are arguing over whether what happened was appropriate, given the guy opted out.

[seabeyond]

23. you dont get to define MY argument. nowhere am i saying the consequences are appropriate

this is the reality.

what if the whole county opts out of paying tax for service. is the city fire still responsible for this county? do city tax higher to pay for these people not paying, providing free service?

that is what the alternatives are. that is the consequence of people chosing not to pay.

[LiberalAndProud]

22. This isn't an issue of this fire or this house.

If this is the only unsubscribed fire in the county this year, I'll be shocked. The city has established this policy because the county officials have obstinately refused to address the problem for years.

We aren't talking about this single homeowner, we are talking about a systemic disfunction. For this homeowner, I wish he had subscribed. I wish he hadn't started the barrel fires. I wish he had tended while the fire burned. I wish the fire department hadn't been bound by the policy that nonsubscribers do not get service.period.

But mostly what I wish is that the county officials had already done their job. They haven't. And that leaves homeowners responsible to subscribe with the city for fire protection. It's the law and the contract. And ultimately, it is for this county to find the solutions. And they won't unless there is some reason to. If this isn't a reason, then maybe the next one will be. It's not a problem that will go away until they get serious about addressing it.

[petronius]

44. Exactly right! Someone somewhere pointed out that there are multiple arguments

going on at the same time (I'd characterize it as people discussing what should be and people responding to what is talking past one another) and the disconnect is leading to a lot of insults and low-content threads...

Edit - can't spell...

[seabeyond]

45. shouldnt we at least recognize what is, in order to address what should be, properly

and in an informed manner.

we can all say those firemen should not have allowed house to burn.

but there is a reason that "is" that allowed it to get to that point. if we ignore the reason why, we will never get to the point of addressing what should be.

[TonyMontana]

24. You obviously haven't read a good number of threads here

I can think of at least 4 DU members. I can't name them here, but they know who they are.

[seabeyond]

25. yes, i have been reading the threads. nt

[bvar22]

28. DU has gotten pretty conservative the last few years.

I have seen many arguments for Opt Out (destruction) of Social Security.
The Democratic Party will probably cut SS benefits after the election.
Many people here think Mandates without a Public Option (Republican Health Non-Care) is just Fine & Peachy.

A couple of days ago, there was an OP strongly arguing FOR Cutting Veteran/Military retirement benefits as a good way to reduce the deficit. :shrug:

I would be careful speaking for Everyone on DU these days.

That said,
My wife & I are both active Rural Volunteer FireFighters.

The idea of NOT putting out a fire is abhorrent to both of us and every single FireFighter on our department.
About 25% of the homes in this area do not pay the yearly dues that keep our department up & running.
Whether someone has paid their dues or not is never a part of the equation when we are called out.

[itsrobert]

30. So, who makes up for the shortfall when 25 percent doesn't pay?

Is that factored in among the people who do pay?

[blindpig]

34. There is this sayin'...

From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.

Karl Marx

Words to live by, I think.

[seabeyond]

35. and when according to their ability they can pay, but refuse cause they think it is

socialism?

why wouldnt we just as strongly demand that the county roll it into local taxes so all are covered.

[blindpig]

38. This is not a socialist society.

In such a society that sort of shirking would be condemned by the community, they would be ostracized. That alone would have a great mitigating effect upon such anti-social behavior. There would not be great disparity of wealth to distort social relations.

We got a long way to go, better get a move on.

[seabeyond]

39. i understand it is not socialist. you understand it is not socialist. the man who did not pay

did not pay cause he insists it is socialist and he should not have to pay. and the county chose to see service as socialist, ergo they dont collect taxes from citizens but leave it as an option to pay.

cause after all

they refuse to be a part fo a socialist network.

endangering everyone with their choices

[blindpig]

42. I would hope they reconsider after this.

If not, they are not fit to be neighbors.

Did the man refuse for that reason, I don't know. If so he just got a hard lesson. But for the firefighters to stand by as they did incomprehensible to me, it is a complete denial of community, an abrogation of society. Shame on them and shame on those who promote libertarian hogwash, a pseudo philosophy whose only purpose is to preserve the ruling class.

[seabeyond]

43. i am not getting into the morality of what these firefighters did. collective pot

that is my issue. now our collective pot is being shattered. that will be more and more $ of the fewer going into that pot and will hurt us all. we cannot sustain and option of walking away from the collective pot. that should eb a fundamental democratic principle.

[blindpig]

46. Rather...

that collective pot be fixed.

There is no walking away, not for the vast majority. We are social animals, our genome is at best advantage when we act as such.

[itsrobert]

36. But some had the ability to pay

they just didn't need to pay it.

[blindpig]

40. In a society like ours that why we got taxes.

Perhaps not ideal but the needs of the community must be met. That this community felt differently is upon their heads, maybe they'll change their tune, if not I for one would move elsewhere.

[seabeyond]

41. our local taxes pay for our FD. the city that is in another state does not have local

taxes from this county being given to them.

[Dappleganger]

32. Well said.

[Swede]

31. I'm with you on this seabeyond.

How do people feel when they find out someone hasn't paid taxes,hoping to skate along?

[seabeyond]

33. i know more republicans that do not pay their taxes, find a way not to pay what they should, bitch

about having to pay taxes for schools, art, libraries, fire, police.

i have a brother that has spent a lifetime lecturing on christianity (doesnt go to churh, doesnt know religion but fox news) and morality and liberal welfare queens, and he has never paid his taxes. in trouble all over the place as he lectures me on the morality of the nation. gripes about the education school gives his child as he blames all his daughters fuck ups on the teachers.

i live in a state that bumperstickers "cecede" as they take a higher amount of federal funding than the blue states.

GD tired of the teabaggers bitchin about everything as they are the problem.

[mainer]

37. Some on DU just believe in personal responsibility.

If you don't go to work, there are consequences. If you don't do your homework, there are consequences. If you don't pay your bills, there are consequences.

[jgraz]

47. "Personal responsibility". Code for "I got mine, fuck y'all"

Can't help but notice that whenever a rich person fucks up -- like, say, by crashing the global economy -- we never hear calls for "personal responsibility". It's only when the poor or middle class make mistakes that we think it's fine for them to be subjected to life-altering consequences -- like watching all their possessions get destroyed while their pets burn to death.

[seabeyond]

48. 50% of the people not paying for service. collective pot. personal responsibility adding your part

small amount into the pot to make it whole and able to take care of all. not 50% not paying into the pot so the collection is by the few in greater amounts.

is that personal responsibility such a fuck you?

really?

[jgraz]

49. Use a sane tax system. Everyone pays or they are subject to penalties.

And those penalties do NOT include having your pets burn to death while you watch.

[seabeyond]

50. they did a study. .13 cents to all to have all covered in 2008. so what? .50 now?

that is all people are saying. to have an opt out program, yet expect the service regardless from a city, in another state that gets NO money form these people is ridiculous. and fuckin 50% of the people dont add into the pot. that makes me so mad.

[jgraz]

51. Not sure what the problem is with just throwing tax evaders in jail.

As we've seen, an opt-out system doesn't work.

[mainer]

52. No, it's code for: act like a grownup

Society can't rescue idiots who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives. I am not going to pay the bills of a neighbor who drinks his paycheck away.

Personal responsibility applies to everyone. And I agree, rich folks who never learn to follow the laws should get thrown in jail. And their slacker kids should be flunked out of school. I have no patience for them either.

[jgraz]

53. So do you think society has any "responsibility" to ameliorate catastrophic outcomes?

What if the guy's kid was in the house? Should she have just been sacrificed on your altar of personal responsibility?

[mainer]

54. FDs ALWAYS protect human life.

That has never been in question, except for those on these boards who are using dishonesty and histrionics to try to make their points.

[jgraz]

55. But it was OK for his pets to be burned alive.

I bet that fucking cat will never live with a tax evader again!

[seabeyond]

56. get this one. fire way out in back yard. two hours to get to house. two fuckin hours to get pets

out of house. why the hell did those animals burn to death. and really, what fukin asshole would leave his animals in the house when he had more than enough time to get them out.

i am disliking this man more and more

[jgraz]

57. Beside the point

Once they got to the house and knew the pets were inside, what should they have done?

[seabeyond]

58. wait. the firemen should risk their life (yes that is their job) when owner of pets leave them in

house with plenty of time to pull them out.

this is incredible.

[jgraz]

59. You're assuming they would be risking their lives.

There's a huge gulf between a sitting on your hands and rushing into a burning building. We neither know what the owner did nor what the circumstances were when the fire crew arrived. What we do know is that the firefighters refused to do anything to help.

[seabeyond]

61. we do know that it took time for the fire to get to the house. we do know that first it got the

shed, engulfed adn then as an article said.... creeped to the house.

we are also perceptive enough to comprehend that we can out run that fire to the house, hit the back or front door, whatever we deem best and open door, call dogs....

and well, there you go

either they forgot dogs.
didnt care about dogs and now use them
dont have dogs.

the curious want to know.

but i am certainly NOT gonna give it to the FD with lack of info

[ecstatic]

63. Personal responsibility should be irrelevant in an emergency situation

I am a big believer in personal responsibility, but in an emergency situation, we don't sit back and analyze who is responsible. We save who needs to be saved. Think about the hikers climbing during snow storms or boaters fishing during a hurricane. They may act stupidly but we still have rescuers risk their lives to help. It's just the way things are done and I would hate to see that change.

[ecstatic]

62. Nobody should be able opt out; but if they do, they still should be saved

in spite of their stupidity and refusal to pay in. Why? Because it's the right/moral thing to do.

[seabeyond]

64. is it moral/ethical to do at the expense of gutting the very agency that helps...

overburdening the people paying for the service?

we say the moral thing to do for the individual.

with 50% not paying. and 75% of the calls. is it morally correct to allow them to continue to not put funds into the coffer yet take the funds out without conscious?

over the last couple days i have found this really interesting.

a town of 2500 financially taking care of the needs of 35k higher income people. and putting the burden on the poorer, smaller group for the greed and righteousness of the wealthier larger group

personally, i dont make a declaration of letting house burn, not letting house burn. for a couple different reasons. but this angle of the story above is fascinating, in we the people