Firefighters watch home burn to the ground.

Joined Feb 2005
7K Posts | 0+
Michigan
Interesting. Thought I'd bring this up as a discussion topic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate

Rural Tennessee fire sparks conservative ideological debate
By Brett Michael Dykes

Just about anything can be fodder for an ideological dispute these days. Just consider news of the recent fire at Gene Cranick's home in Obion County, Tenn.
Here's the short version of what happened: In rural Obion County, homeowners must pay $75 annually for fire protection services from the nearby city of South Fulton. If they don't pay the fee and their home catches fire, tough luck -- even if firefighters are positioned just outside the home with hoses at the ready.
Gene Cranick found this out the hard way.
When Cranick's house caught fire last week, and he couldn't contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the Fire Department's defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.
They did, however, come out when Cranick's neighbor -- who'd already paid the fee -- called 911 because he worried that the fire might spread to his property. Once they arrived, members of the South Fulton department stood by and watched Cranick's home burn; they sprang into action only when the fire reached the neighbor's property.
"I hadn't paid my $75 and that's what they want, $75, and they don't care how much it burned down," Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

The incident has sparked a debate in many corners of the Web. Writers for the National Review, arguably the nation's most influential right-leaning voice, have seized on the episode to discuss the relative merits of compassionate conservatism versus a hard-line libertarianism. (See their arguments here, here, here, here and here.)
Daniel Foster, a self-described "conservative with fairly libertarian leanings" who writes for the magazine, took issue with the county's laissez-faire approach to firefighting, calling it "a kind of government for which I would not sign up."
"What moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?" Foster wrote.
[Elsewhere: Prince William helps make daring rescue with Royal Air Force]
But Foster's colleague Kevin Williamson took the opposite view. Cranick's fellow residents in the rural stretches of Obion County had no fire protection until the county established the $75 fee in 1990. As Williamson explained: "The South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton's firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives."
Liberals are pouncing on the Cranick fire as an illustration of what they take to be the callous indifference of a market regime that rewards privileged interests over the concerns of ordinary Americans.
"The case perfectly demonstrated conservative ideology, which is based around the idea of the on-your-own society and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well-off and privileged," Think Progress' Zaid Jilani wrote in a response to the National Review writers. "It has been 28 years since conservative historian Doug Wead first coined the term 'compassionate conservative.' It now appears that if any such philosophy ever existed, it has few adherents in the modern conservative movement."
 
It's difficult to tell how I feel about this. I mean, he did offer to pay when he called 911, but at the same time he didn't take the $75 charge seriously. At least no one got killed.
 
Honestly I think the fire fighters didn't do anything wrong. They offer a service/protection for when it does happen you're covered like with insurence. Although they could have had something like in the event someone hasn't paid, they charge him a couple thousand or so, to discourage others from going the same route, although I'm sure letting his house burn down got that message out clear.

I do think it's wrong to let something terrible when you have means of stopping it, it wouldn't be fair to the other people if he just paid 75 bucks when his house is on fire when others pay 75 yearly to make sure their house is safe.
 
He should have paid the fee. That's like me being mad at McDonalds for not feeding me when I have no cash on me.
 
He should have just paid it. But even so, I don't think I could just stand there watching somebodies house burn to the ground when I have the means to put it out. It's a freaking measly 75 bones, not worth letting a whole house go to waste.
 
mastermario said:
Aren't taxes supposed to cover firefighting?

Within areas of coverage, yes. Those a certain distance away from a fire station must pay a service charge.
 
mastermario said:
Aren't taxes supposed to cover firefighting?

The expectation while living in a civilized society is that social services are covered by taxes. Federal taxes are collected by the central government to raise a standing army for civil defense. State, county, and city taxes are raised for state, county, city roads, public works, etc. Among these social services is fire protection.
 
I looked it up. South Fulton is in another county. Obion County probably doesn't have a fire department of their own, and since their taxes don't go to South Fulton Fire Department, they offer to help Obion residents who pay the fee. No free lunch people.
 
I see nothing wrong here except the guy thought he could get that "free lunch." He thought he could let someone else pay his way. Very strong message here, PAY THE FEE. $75 sounds very reasonable to me to save my house from burning to the ground.
 
CreepinDeth said:
It's difficult to tell how I feel about this. I mean, he did offer to pay when he called 911, but at the same time he didn't take the $75 charge seriously. At least no one got killed.

A firefighters job is to *put out fires*.

Put out the fire and charge him, but do your job.

Every one of them should be criminally charged.
 
Lupin33andaThird said:
A firefighters job is to *put out fires*.

Put out the fire and charge him, but do your job.

Every one of them should be criminally charged.

See, one side of me feels that way. But the other side tells me that they should've taken the $75 charge seriously and should'nt have just scoffed at it.

If the homeowners, or any others for that matter, felt that it was wrong, then they should've brought it to someones attention before someone had to lose their home. Plus, the firefighters were being told by their superiors to not do anything. If charges were to be brought in, only their superiors who called the shots should be charged.
 
This is why I brought this up, it's a moral conflict... I'm sure they didn't enjoy watching that house burn to the ground but they couldn't do anything about it, they were just doing their job. I don't think I could've just stood there and not do anything myself, but I'm sure I wouldn't disobey my superiors.
 
aleeock157 said:
This is why I brought this up, it's a moral conflict... I'm sure they didn't enjoy watching that house burn to the ground but they couldn't do anything about it, they were just doing their job. I don't think I could've just stood there and not do anything myself, but I'm sure I wouldn't disobey my superiors.

Just following orders is the excuse of criminals and cowards.
 
Lupin33andaThird said:
A firefighters job is to *put out fires*.

Put out the fire and charge him, but do your job.

Every one of them should be criminally charged.

It's like what Spartan said about the free lunch, you pay so in the event of a fire, if they only charged 75 bucks to put out a fire I doubt they'd be able to be around to offer their services.

I think they could have atleast done something like charge the dude like a percentage of what his house is worth but hey, thems the breaks. Yeah he lost his house but it would be like a big slap in the face to the others paying the yearly fee.
 
*Anyone* who says the guy deserved to have his house burn down over $75 deserves to have their house burn down while no one lifts a finger to help.

You charge the guy the money, if he refuses to pay, you take him to court or jail.

But letting someone's house burn down over $75?

What if he had been sleeping in there and they had done nothing?

Anyone who says he deserved this is completely ignorant and has absolutely zero human compassion.
 
Snatcher_L said:
It's like what Spartan said about the free lunch, you pay so in the event of a fire, if they only charged 75 bucks to put out a fire I doubt they'd be able to be around to offer their services.

I think they could have atleast done something like charge the dude like a percentage of what his house is worth but hey, thems the breaks. Yeah he lost his house but it would be like a big slap in the face to the others paying the yearly fee.

I'm sorry but a slap in the face is not comparable to your house burning down. Yes, they would have had every right to be frustrated, but they should deal with that AFTER they have saved his house. Charge him double, or fine him, but for god's sake don't let a perfectly good home burn down over a measly 75 dollars!