Burning Down The House. Cause vs Human Compassion

[mmonk]

I'm as passionate to the cause of a democratitized society and to American workers as anybody. However, the change I seek for our America does not require any lessons of suffering or victims to succeed. The house burning down over the fee and the discourse around the country and here is an example IMO.

I wonder if there is a difference between me, a liberal progressive populist who believes we are all in this world together and should take advantage of our commonality and put each and all of us at the center regardless of differences and a hard core leftist who must advance the cause at any price. This could be an incidence of where we diverge.

I'm one of those that thinks change for a better collective responsibility for our communities, state, and nation can be achieved without victims. Maybe the house burning will make people think, maybe it will help them realize that the libertarian ideal is smoke and mirrors without a basis in the real world. However, I can't ignore the similarities of some the arguments from those on the left that think letting the house burn will teach them a lesson and the same argument from the libertarian right arguing the same thing because the victim deserved losing their home and everyone is responsible for themselves, not their neighbors.

The change for a better life here from my perspective does not require victims. Maybe because cause does not trump human compassion with me. I would rather the change I seek come from compassion because in the end, I feel compassion rejects libertarianism and the hard right as its natural course. If one's point requires suffering, maybe it isn't a point at all. True economic and social justice doesn't require it. It becomes self-evident.

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

Very well said.

I do think that in order for this culture to reach higher ground, there is going to have to be some sacrifice and suffering. But I am convinced that it will be those who volunteer for Gandhi-style activities, aimed at appealing to the public's conscience, who will pay those dues.

[mmonk]

12. Exactly.

This is what I call useless suffering. It sways neither side of the debate in question and someone suffers harm that could be avoided by actions that require empathy.

[Tippy]

2. Very well said...K&R

[Fumesucker]

3. What is blatantly self-evident to one person is totally opaque to another.

In an ideal world change for the better would not require anyone to suffer but we do not live in anything remotely approaching an ideal world.

Seriously, until you live in a place that is under political control of Full Metal Wingnuts you really can't appreciate how different their thinking is from the average dirty fucking hippie librul.

My county has one side that's fairly dense suburban/mixed race and the other side is nearly completely rural/white, the battles in the county government are beyond epic over things just like the fire situation in Tennessee.

[mmonk]

4. I understand the differences.

I live in Raleigh NC where there are universities and there is diversity as my street has people from the south like me, transplants from other areas of the country, and people from India, France, and elsewhere. However, I grew up in a small town 20 miles east with little diversity in culture and opinion and where people are susceptable to right wing thought, religious fundamentalism, radio and Fox News.

[Fumesucker]

5. How then can you say that progress is possible without pain?

Certain people just have to experience a disaster personally to understand why it is a problem, we have vast numbers of these people and they are a serious impediment to progress.

Twenty miles in location, a hundred years in attitude, I see exactly that in my county.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you appear to be.

[mmonk]

10. Because both sides see that pain for their cause.

[Pithlet]

6. Yep. I just read in an article in my local news where Cranick, the homeowner

says he's still not certain whether he would support a tax over the fee subscription. Still not certain? After what happened to him? That is exactly why the city had been driven to do what it had done. It's different round these parts. And yes, firefighters are supposed to uphold an oath and all. But how can they keep doing it for free? They simply can't. The Cranicks of the world simply can't keep demanding it, and it's the height of unfairness to damn the providers when they finally throw up their hands. I won't do it. To hell with those who think I'm cruel for refusing to damn the fire department.

[Fumesucker]

7. You should really post that as an OP..

There are so many here on DU who just do not get it.

[distantearlywarning]

8. I'm with you on this one - many of us are.

It's not that we want to see people's houses burn down, but the world is full of people who will never fucking wake up about the long-term consequences of their belief structures until something like this happens (and apparently some of them still won't wake up after 2 houses burnt), and in this case, will bankrupt their neighbors and put everyone in danger in the long term if they are allowed to continue in their behaviors.

BTW, would you mind posting the link to the quote from the guy about fee fire service vs. taxes?

[Pithlet]

9. Here's a link to the story I read.

It's a good one. It also features the fire chief of another department in the county. He's the same one that was discussed in another thread, who defended the fire department's decision. http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-obion-fire,0,2139336.story

Oops, I can't edit my post. It's the homeowner's son that said it.

[TexasObserver]

11. It's wrong because it is a means test for emergency services.

First we put out the fire, then we figure out if the homeowner has to pay for it.

Those who say the city cannot collect for the charges simply do not know what they're talking about. They're repeating nonsense someone somewhere told them. The fact that the city only collects on 50% of such matters means their lazy ass city attorney isn't doing his job. He can file a lien. He can sue to collect on the lien. He can notice their lender and their insurer of the lien amount and demand payment.

The "let it burn" side of this argument is propelled mainly by ignorance or worse.

[struggle4progress]

13. South Fulton's Fire Dept was not "making a point" -- they simply do not have

the funding to assume blanket responsibility for fires in the unincorporated areas. Fighting fires requires equipment: pumps and hoses and firefighter's protective gear and other such equipment gets hard use in fighting fires, and it must be maintained/repaired/replaced. If the budget is exhausted, the FD will arrive at fires with damaged equipment and it will not be as effective in its work

Obion county has cooked up a pretty little scam where the county refuses to fund its own fire services and expects the city fire departments to provide those services: if something goes wrong, county residents are outraged and react by bullying the city fire departments. But it is manifestly unreasonable of the county to expect the city fire departments to plan to fight more fires than their budgets allow