The Flaw in Libertarian Ideals

[MissBrattified]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local...104052668.html


The problem with libertarianism is that it leads to people trying to teach others "lessons" about their bad choices. If you have the POWER to prevent a catastrophe and you do NOT, whether you are a government entity or an individual, it is morally reprehensible.

A doctor has a moral obligation to assist a dying person even if that person NEVER pays their bills. For a doctor to check with his secretary first to make sure the patient pays their bill, and THEN determine whether he/she will offer life saving assistance is an illustration of greed and inhumanity.

Likewise, for men who fight fires for a living to allow a member of their community to lose everything because he failed to pay a $75 fee? It's completely un-American. I don't care if the homeowner is a selfish miser who gambled the wrong way with his personal property; it was still immoral for that FD to stand there and do nothing. I can't imagine the MEN I know doing something like that.

What do you think? Do you think this FD did the right thing? What if someone had been trapped inside and died in the fire? (Other than the family pets, who did die in the fire.)

[coadie]

My issue is that I suspect they take federal and state dollars and decide how to govern their duties. If we grow grass, the cops will not come out unless we pay 75 dollars? Many firemen cross boundaries.

[Praxeas]

I wonder if those residents pay property tax or other city taxes.

Also I wonder if they guy was willing to pay the firemen, why not just pay the 75$ fee?

Was it made clear to the homeowners the consequences?

Why not just save the house and send the man a bill?

Also can't blame the FD really, you have to blame those that made this law

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I wonder if those residents pay property tax or other city taxes.

Also I wonder if they guy was willing to pay the firemen, why not just pay the 75$ fee?

According to the New York Times, he had paid the bill in years past, but had failed to pay it this year.

Was it made clear to the homeowners the consequences?

Why not just save the house and send the man a bill?

Good questions, but what bothers me is that anyone would feel the need to check a payment record before sending help in an emergency situation. Emergencies require immediate attention, and presumably there would not be (and should not be) time to assess the finances first.

Also can't blame the FD really, you have to blame those that made this law

I blame the FD! They are just as guilty as their superiors. I don't know a single MAN among my friends and family who would stand and watch someone's house burn because of an unpaid bill, even if a superior ordered them to stand by and do nothing. (Assuming they had the power to actually do something about it.) I believe I read in one report that neighbors tried to help but their hoses wouldn't reach or weren't powerful enough.

There are times when you should disobey orders; IMO, this is one of them. It reflects badly on the character of every man involved that they followed the mayor's wishes.

What if the governor of New Orleans had refused to offer emergency assistance during Hurricane Katrina to anyone who was behind on their taxes?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

According to the New York Times, he had paid the bill in years past, but had failed to pay it this year.

Good questions, but what bothers me is that anyone would feel the need to check a payment record before sending help in an emergency situation. Emergencies require immediate attention, and presumably there would not be (and should not be) time to assess the finances first.

I blame the FD! They are just as guilty as their superiors. I don't know a single MAN among my friends and family who would stand and watch someone's house burn because of an unpaid bill, even if a superior ordered them to stand by and do nothing. (Assuming they had the power to actually do something about it.) I believe I read in one report that neighbors tried to help but their hoses wouldn't reach or weren't powerful enough.

There are times when you should disobey orders; IMO, this is one of them. It reflects badly on the character of every man involved that they followed the mayor's wishes.

What if the governor of New Orleans had refused to offer emergency assistance during Hurricane Katrina to anyone who was behind on their taxes?

Good points, Yeah that bothers me too that they would check. And again I don't see why not just save the house then send a bill..attack it to his property tax or something

[ILG]

Well, if the guy refused to pay, he can't really complain. I do think the FD should have put it out anyway. But, I tell you what. Nobody will skip paying now, and if they had put it out, more people would have skipped paying.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by ILG

Well, if the guy refused to pay, he can't really complain. I do think the FD should have put it out anyway. But, I tell you what. Nobody will skip paying now, and if they had put it out, more people would have skipped paying.

But they do pay. They cover this and other fire departments by taxes, state funding, federal grants etc. $75 dollars is just a special tarrif.

Districts are;
Union City 40-- Members, 41-- Apparatus.
S. Fulton 21--
Rives 61--
Troy 47--
Obion 81--
Hornbeak 44--
Samburg 20--
Rescue Squad 68-- Members & 69-- Apparatus

In a real world, in the case of larger fires such as this, units from several districts respond. That includes equipment that doesn't get a tarriff.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by coadie

But they do pay. They cover this and other fire departments by taxes, state funding, federal grants etc. $75 dollars is just a special tarrif.

Districts are;
Union City 40-- Members, 41-- Apparatus.
S. Fulton 21--
Rives 61--
Troy 47--
Obion 81--
Hornbeak 44--
Samburg 20--
Rescue Squad 68-- Members & 69-- Apparatus

In a real world, in the case of larger fires such as this, units from several districts respond. That includes equipment that doesn't get a tarriff.

Yeah, you have a point.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by ILG

Yeah, you have a point.

I am a little bold. It would be illegal and nasty if a person came into an emergency room and they hustled to find out pay status before giving the best care.
I also know if a fireman is trained to put out fires and keep his discussion of politics inside the walls of the firestation, Many firemen agree this makes them look bad. Very bad. First rule is to protect people and property.
If a good fireman fought a fire and got fired because the mayor said he should have avoided it, he would be my hero.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by coadie

I am a little bold. It would be illegal and nasty if a person came into an emergency room and they hustled to find out pay status before giving the best care.
I also know if a fireman is trained to put out fires and keep his discussion of politics inside the walls of the firestation, Many firemen agree this makes them look bad. Very bad. First rule is to protect people and property.
If a good fireman fought a fire and got fired because the mayor said he should have avoided it, he would be my hero.

Coadie,
I agree with your sentiments concerning this situation.

I do wonder if there is anything in individual firemen's professional insurance plans that would allow the insurance companies to not cover the firemen in situations like this.


If it were up to me, this law would be immediately repealed and the elected officials who supported this law would be voted out.


I am not one of those sue happy people, but in this case, if it were my family, you'd better believe I would be looking to consider all, if any, of the legal options available to me.



If one of the family members in this case had suffered smoke inhalation injuries in direct result of this fire, would the EMT's not treat that person?

If someone was trapped inside that house, would the firemen have not rescued them?


This is an example of a very bad law.