*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by jwray.

Replace all the morality arguments for firefighters not standing by with healthcare and doctors. Now check if the homeowner or anyone in the video who said the firefighters should have put it out supported (the concept of) healthcare paid for by taxes.

This guy got called multiple times to remind him he didn't pay. Of course it was intentional on his part. Now karmaically that's not really a burned down house worth of offense, but buddy, YOU are the other foot the shoe is on. How do you feel now?

I forgot to pay my life insurance premium and died. But, seriously, I feel like if you pay taxes you deserve the services. It's lazy for policy makers to use all the money in the general fund and double dip with added service fees.

any investigation as to the cause of the fire?

small town accidents have a way of being not so accidental.

I'm just surprised this happened in America..the richest country on earth. How do we let this happen?

>> ^Yogi:

I'm just surprised this happened in America..the richest country on earth. How do we let this happen?


We have too many people grumbling about taxes, rather than grumbling about how they want better government services.

>> ^blankfist:

I forgot to pay my life insurance premium and died. But, seriously, I feel like if you pay taxes you deserve the services. It's lazy for policy makers to use all the money in the general fund and double dip with added service fees.

It's a rural area. They didn't have fire service at all until the city offered it as for pay. They had a big proposal for covering it with a tax, but it was predictably shot down, so they went with the service fee instead.>> ^Trancecoach:

any investigation as to the cause of the fire?
small town accidents have a way of being not so accidental.

Again, minor karma. He caused it himself. He was burning leaves, which in most places (and there too probably) is illegal just for this reason.

DON'T RAISE TAXES!
DON'T TREAD ON ME!
DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH MY PROPERTY.

...

SAVE ME, I'M A VICTIM.

--Yeah, of your own bad choices. Can't have it both ways, buddy. It was nice that the city offered to extend fire service to the county for such a small fee. The guy knew the risks and decided to save some cash. Then the guy lights his own house on fire and is playing the victim. Repulsive.

I'm fine with a per-year fee if they're really that anti-tax. The main change I would make would be an on-site fee for anyone who opts out of the yearly fee.

People might rather pay $75 per year if the on-site fee is several thousand dollars. Taxes work too, but all that really does is remove the ability to opt-out.

I'm still waiting for someone to join Glenn Beck, and defend the righteousness of letting the house burn down.

If you're not willing to go that far, even for "deadbeats" who can't pay, then what are we really talking about?

Instead of taxing everyone, and serving everyone, we serve everyone, but make people have to opt-in to paying $75/yr, or else run the risk of getting slapped with a bill of several thousand dollars if their house catches fire?

Does that really strike people as a superior method of financing fire departments?

Of course it's not superior, but human beings tend not to have foresight. They'll vote against new taxes, or the very concept of being taxed, from now till eternity and not think about it until it's their house that burns down.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm still waiting for someone to join Glenn Beck, and defend the righteousness of letting the house burn down.
If you're not willing to go that far, even for "deadbeats" who can't pay, then what are we really talking about?
Instead of taxing everyone, and serving everyone, we serve everyone, but make people have to opt-in to paying $75/yr, or else run the risk of getting slapped with a bill of several thousand dollars if their house catches fire?
Does that really strike people as a superior method of financing fire departments?


To me it's not righteousness. To me it's an unfortunate situation that some have decided to politicize. It's a shame this happened, but why are people like you hellbent on using this as justification for more taxes and more government services? Why stop at fire departments? Why not move to have government take over every service imaginable and wipe out business altogether?

Or is it just those that purport to save lives? Then maybe government should be in the business of creating pharmaceutical products? Creating and building hospitals? All ambulatory services should be made public because the private ones are doing such a terrible job as is, right? Good nutrition and exercise are important for our health, so maybe the good government can set strict nutritional requirements, compulsory exercise programs, and maybe even take over the entire farming industry?

Maybe we should pretend Socialism didn't work with the Soviet model and give it another go! Why? Because we're saving lives/for the children/to stop terrorism, etc.

I hear this only happened because these German guys didn't pay their Libertarian user fees: http://videosift.com/video/Friendly-traffic-cop-says-your-ass-will-be-violated

lol richest country in the world? u gotta be kidding
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-riches
t.

>> ^Yogi:

I'm just surprised this happened in America..the richest country on earth. How do we let this happen?

>> ^Marzden:

lol richest country in the world? u gotta be kidding
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-riches
t.
>> ^Yogi:
I'm just surprised this happened in America..the richest country on earth. How do we let this happen?



"Top ten richest countries in the world is based on the GDP per capita of each country."

Yeah I was wrong...we're not the most rich or powerful country by far we don't control a vast majority of the worlds wealth we don't spend as much as the entire world combined on the military. How could I forget the awesome power that is Luxembourg...surely they'll crush us into dust.

You're being intentionally dense to be argumentative...that doesn't really help thanks.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm still waiting for someone to join Glenn Beck, and defend the righteousness of letting the house burn down.
If you're not willing to go that far, even for "deadbeats" who can't pay, then what are we really talking about?
Instead of taxing everyone, and serving everyone, we serve everyone, but make people have to opt-in to paying $75/yr, or else run the risk of getting slapped with a bill of several thousand dollars if their house catches fire?
Does that really strike people as a superior method of financing fire departments?


So if people vote against instituting a tax to pay for fire service in remote areas then what is the alternative, tax them anyway?

It reminds me of rural garbage collection vs city garbage collection. In many rural areas people have to sign up for curb-side or at-house garbage service, so if they don't pay then they don't get the service. In cities there is usually a tax that covers all residents, whether they use it or not. Both versions have their positives and negatives.

Obviously fire service is more serious since you don't lose your house if no one picks up your trash, but the people who live in an area should have some say in which type of system they want. If the majority in that area don't want a tax then I don't see a problem with giving each person the option of paying for individual service.

Perhaps it would be more fair to have an automatic tax with the ability to specifically request an opt-out if desired. I know if I spent a lot of extra money building a house from material that won't burn (which some people do) then I'd probably see fire service as unneeded. Of course if I opt out and my house really does burn then there should be a way to get the fire department to put it out, even if it costs far more than whatever I opted out of intentionally.

(My area is tax-based, which I have no problem with.)

>> ^blankfist:

Why stop at fire departments? Why not move to have government take over every service imaginable and wipe out business altogether?

Because a mix of markets and regulation works a lot better for most things, and I have no desire to deprive people of individual choice. Quite the contrary in fact.

Most of what animates my politics is luck egalitarianism. People who make good choices should do well, people who make bad choices should do less so, but random things that happen to everyone should be factored out of the equation as much as humanly possible.

At the extremes, I'm more of a basic egalitarian -- I don't think bad career and business choices should force you to starve to death, or have to have your medical ailments left untreated, or to have the fire fighters let your house burn down.

At some point you really should try to get to understand liberals in this country for what they are, rather than constantly making lame straw man arguments about communism and socialism.

>> ^Psychologic:

So if people vote against instituting a tax to pay for fire service in remote areas then what is the alternative, tax them anyway?

The alternative is I make a fuss about it, point out how wrong it is, and hope that next time people vote differently.

Like you said, it would be a thousand times better if they just made a default assumption that people want to pay, and make it require a conscious effort to opt-out, rather than vice versa.

*length=10:15

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 10:15 - length declared by Zifnab.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Zifnab.