Fire sale: Fire Department lets home burn over $75.00 fee.

But nobody's talking about people paying for insurance when the need arises. We are ALL talking about paying for services when the need arises. Your argument relies on the assertion that the $75 fee makes the fire services into fire protection insurance, but that's not true.

Fire services are like insurance and if you only charge for them after the fact, you have the classic adverse selection problem. Few will buy the service until they desperately need it.

Your continual claim that insurance and service are in fact the same thing is simply incorrect.

Not only that, but your original post in the thread seemed to suggest that the firefighters did the right thing; that under the model of their business, they were justified and correct to let the home burn down.

I cannot agree with this position for several reasons, but the most important one would be that it is never morally or ethically correct to take advantage of a technicality at the expense of someone's livelihood, in order to gain more customers for one's business.

It is entirely akin to a doctor simply letting someone die because they don't have the money to pay for the bill right now; and even WORSE, letting them die even though they DO have the money to pay, as an example to other 'freeloaders.'

Did I suggest that? I'm sorry, I meant to say that explicitly. Of course the firefighters did the right thing by letting that house burn down.

...

Doctors, in that instance, would be entirely justified in denying care to a non-subscriber, just as the fire department was justified in not providing firefighting services to Mr. Cranick.

This whole scenario begs the question of what that fire department's response would be to a reported car fire on the highway if someone's out-of-town car catches fire. Would they not put it out because the vehicle owner isn't a local and hasn't paid the fee? If they would put it out, what's different between the two scenarios?

I guess the entire discussion boils down to this:

Quote:

Did I suggest that? I'm sorry, I meant to say that explicitly. Of course the firefighters did the right thing by letting that house burn down.

...

Doctors, in that instance, would be entirely justified in denying care to a non-subscriber, just as the fire department was justified in not providing firefighting services to Mr. Cranick.

You are perfectly incorrect.

They may be legally justified, but they certainly are not morally or ethically justified in doing so, in either case. Both cases represent a loss with no gain to anybody, in the name of an ideology which isn't workable in real life.

If these represent your true beliefs - that monetary obligation and legal technicalities trump all other questions of morality in instances of emergency- then I'm sorry for you, Joe. This is antithetical to the concept of community and the American ideal.

No, those do not represent my true beliefs, they represent your comical mischaracterization of my beliefs.

failures art wrote:

My point is that the fire department is not analogous to the insurance company but rather the doctor.

Well, when you run the fire department like an insurance company, then it follows that the fire department is more like an insurance company than a doctor. Now, I'm not saying that fire departments should be run like insurance companies, just that, if they are run like insurance companies, then we should expect these kinds of scenarios.

I don't see any meaningful difference between the two. You advocate that in a system which is set up to only provide services to those who pay in advance, people who didn't pay in advance should be left to suffer their fates. That we are not allowed to judge morality or ethics independent of the system in which we are operating, whether that system is fair or not. Correct?

If not, why don't you tell me the difference between my statement and your opinion re: what should have been done in this matter or related matters.

monetary obligation and legal technicalities trump all other questions of morality in instances of emergency

....

earlier, Cycloptichorn wrote:

monetary obligation and legal technicalities trump all other questions of morality in instances of emergency

First of all, I dispute the term "legal technicalities." If you think that a law, passed in accordance with the proper legislative process, is some sort of "technicality," you'll have to explain that to me.

Second, I don't think monetary considerations or "legal technicalities" trump questions of morality in all instances of emergency. Really, that's just laughable -- and you accuse me of appealing to extremes. We're discussing a particular situation involving the duties of professionals. Those duties are dictated by the nature of the profession. ...

..A conservative group, the Free Enterprise
Fund, filed a suit arguing that the struc-
ture of the PCAOB was unconstitutional,
because its members could be removed
only by the S.E.C., and not by the Presi-
dent. In an opinion by the Chief Justice,
for the customary five-to-four majority,
the Court agreed.
To Breyer, the stakes in the case were
immense, because the framework of the
PCAOB was similar to that of many other
components of the contemporary ad-
ministrative state—“the Federal Trade
Commission, the Federal Communica-
tions Commission, the Social Security
Administration, including also more
than fifteen hundred administrative law
judges, and including as well most of the
military officer corps.” The decision put
the actions of all these administrators at
legal risk........................In the majority
opinion, Roberts wrote, with customary
élan, “One can have a government that
functions without being ruled by func-
tionaries, and a government that benefits
from expertise without being ruled by
experts”—a sentiment that could have
served as a Republican talking point in the
health-care debate. The Chief Justice
went on, “The growth of the Executive
Branch, which now wields vast power and
touches almost every aspect of daily life,
heightens the concern that it may slip
from the Executive’s control, and thus
from that of the people. This concern is
largely absent from the dissent’s paean to
the administrative state.”

I haven't read all of the posts, so if I repeat something already posted, my apologies. I saw the homeowner last night on one of the networks and later learned that there were animals in the house that perished. I wonder if anyone would be defending this incredible tale if children or a whole family had been destroyed by the fire.

[ Is there some sort of "firefighter's code" that obliges a firefighter to turn on the hose, no matter what? I am not familiar with such a code.

Firefighter Code of Ethics
The International Association of Fire Fighters, in its Manual of Common Procedure and Related Subjects, contains this code which helps union firefighters uniformly remember their career mission and goals.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As a firefighter and member of the International Association of Fire Fighters, my fundamental duty is to serve humanity; to safeguard and preserve life and property against the elements of fire and disaster; and maintain a proficiency in the art and science of fire engineering.

I will uphold the standards of my profession, continually search for new and improved methods and share my knowledge and skills with my contemporaries and descendants.

I will never allow personal feelings, nor danger to self, deter me from my responsibilities as a firefighter.

I will at all times, respect the property and rights of all men and women, the laws of my community and my country, and the chosen way of life of my fellow citizens.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the fire service. I will constantly strive to achieve the objectives and ideals, dedicating myself to my chosen profession--saving of life, fire prevention and fire suppression.

As a member of the International Association of Fire Fighters, I accept this self-imposed and self-enforced obligation as my responsibility.

the "laws of my community" seem to trump the "property and rights of all men and women" in this case