We should privatize the fire department

[RiverOfIce]

So we are going to force a service onto people regardless of need of said service from a private corporation.

A service that will cost millions of dollars more to the person, cause neighbors to turn on neighbors, forcing a private company into the lives of millions of people.

You can not explain why this is a good idea, point out one time where it worked, or even point out how it is going to not cost millions of dollars.

The only thing that seem to be at play here is, simply handing a private company millions of tax payers money with zero benefit to the community.

Just please explain how this is going to save the average city any money?

As for the two faced hypocrite comment, republicans over the last 10 years are more hypocrites then the democrats.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And the government would pass the judgement...In essence, the government would force it upon the neighbor, to purchase said service, from a private company. And you are against Obama care, for this very reason.

A lawsuit is a dispute between two parties. Sometimes the government is a party in a lawsuit, but they are not in this one. This is purely a dispute between two private individuals. The government will not have a sweeping mandate that all citizens purchase fire services. Nice try at a personal attack,though. And nice straw man argument, too.

 

[Dark Jedi]

A lawsuit is a dispute between two parties. Sometimes the government is a party in a lawsuit, but they are not in this one. This is purely a dispute between two private individuals. The government will not have a sweeping mandate that all citizens purchase fire services. Nice try at a personal attack,though. And nice straw man argument, too.

saw no personal attack. but the govenment passes judgment on the case. If one person wins a case. then other cases will reference this one.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

saw no personal attack.

A straw man argument is when you bring up an unrelated or only superficially related other topic and attack the other party on that instead of the original topic. In this case, he brought up my position on Obamacare, which is very loosely related at best because a sweeping mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance and an individual lawsuit between two private individuals are two completely different things. Therefore, he attacked the straw man and not the topic at hand.

Also, a slippery slope fallacy is one claims that if something happens, it will lead to another, which will lead to something else, i.e., a "chain reaction".

 

[RiverOfIce]

A lawsuit is a dispute between two parties. Sometimes the government is a party in a lawsuit, but they are not in this one. This is purely a dispute between two private individuals. The government will not have a sweeping mandate that all citizens purchase fire services. Nice try at a personal attack,though. And nice straw man argument, too.

So quoting your own words is now a personal attack? But the government will require the citizen to purchase fire protection, because the city will tax them for fire protection.

OR are you saying that the 75 dollars would cover all the fire protection needs?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So quoting your own words is now a personal attack? But the government will require the citizen to purchase fire protection, because the city will tax them for fire protection.

OR are you saying that the 75 dollars would cover all the fire protection needs?

The city will not tax them. That's the entire point of a privatized system. Tax dollars are not collected for fire services.

 

[Dark Jedi]

A straw man argument is when you bring up an unrelated or only superficially related other topic and attack the other party on that instead of the original topic. In this case, he brought up my position on Obamacare, which is very loosely related at best because a sweeping mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance and an individual lawsuit between two private individuals are two completely different things. Therefore, he attacked the straw man and not the topic at hand.

Also, a slippery slope fallacy is one claims that if something happens, it will lead to another, which will lead to something else, i.e., a "chain reaction".

well does not obamacare force people to get insurance? So its no difference than a person being forced to pay for fire protection? I thought you was for freedom of choice? Now its ok to force people to take what they don't want? You really need to make your mind up. Are you for peoples freedoms or against peoples freedoms?

Plus its not a personal attack if its your own words. Maybe you should choose better what you say.

 

[Bob Maxey]

In discussing how or who should or should not pay for fire department services, I read lots of guesses. Can anyone point to a court case or two to support either position?

 

[alostpacket]

OK, so I have recently been approached by a gnome interested in privatizing my underpants. Not sure what to do here. Do you guys think there is profit in this? Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[A.Nonymous]

He can sue and claim that the property is jointly at risk, which would be a valid claim of damage.

So he has to sue after the fact? After his house has burned down? Because before then he has no case at all. He has not been harmed until AFTER his house has been damaged. Then he can sue for damages. Of course the other guy has lost his house and is probably broke so he'll get absolutely nothing out of him.

You can't sue someone based on damages that MIGHT occur. If that was the case I could sue every uninsured driver on the road just in case they might hit me someday.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So he has to sue after the fact? After his house has burned down? Because before then he has no case at all. He has not been harmed until AFTER his house has been damaged. Then he can sue for damages. Of course the other guy has lost his house and is probably broke so he'll get absolutely nothing out of him.

You can't sue someone based on damages that MIGHT occur. If that was the case I could sue every uninsured driver on the road just in case they might hit me someday.

Actually, yes you can. here is an example of that:
Doe v. Michigan (E.D. Mich. 1989)

The student identified only as "Doe" was not punished under the campus' speech code, rather, he sued because he feared that his theories could potentially be seen as hateful under the speech code.

well does not obamacare force people to get insurance? So its no difference than a person being forced to pay for fire protection? I thought you was for freedom of choice? Now its ok to force people to take what they don't want? You really need to make your mind up. Are you for peoples freedoms or against peoples freedoms?

Plus its not a personal attack if its your own words. Maybe you should choose better what you say.

In order for your argument to work, you have to establish how every citizen under a privatized system would be forced to pay for the service. You've yet to do this yet, so you're simply making another straw man argument.

 

[nlsme]

A lawsuit is a dispute between two parties. Sometimes the government is a party in a lawsuit, but they are not in this one. This is purely a dispute between two private individuals. The government will not have a sweeping mandate that all citizens purchase fire services. Nice try at a personal attack,though. And nice straw man argument, too.

Yes, it is between two people. And, WHO MAKES THE RULING. The government. It is NO different than Obamacare. My point stands.

 

[nlsme]

The city will not tax them. That's the entire point of a privatized system. Tax dollars are not collected for fire services.

So, your saying that property taxes are going to be lowered. I thought your original argument was this would save the government money....

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yes, it is between two people. And, WHO MAKES THE RULING. The government. It is NO different than Obamacare. My point stands.

How is it the same as Obamacare? Have you been sued by somebody else because you haven't purchased health insurance yet? Obamacare provides for civil and criminal penalties for failing to purchase health insurance. I don't see anyone proposing those kinds of penalties for disregarding a judgement.

 

[nlsme]

How is it the same as Obamacare? Have you been sued by somebody else because you haven't purchased health insurance yet? Obamacare provides for civil and criminal penalties for failing to purchase health insurance. I don't see anyone proposing those kinds of penalties for disregarding a judgement.

You are, by saying the answer is to sue someone who doesn't want to carry it....

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You are, by saying the answer is to sue someone who doesn't want to carry it....

Even if the your brother won his lawsuit, and the outcome was that his neighbor had to purchase fire protection because it would put your brother in harm's way (which the judgement could be something else, provided he wins at all), how will it cause every other person in an area where the fire department is privatized to be compelled to purchase fire protection against their will? Even if everybody sued their neighbor, not everybody's living situation is the same as your brothers, so not every case would result in the same judgement. Your attempts to bring up an unrelated topic (Obamacare) an attacked my position on that instead of attack my position on the topic at hand are what is called in academia (as I have said before) a straw man argument. It's a logical fallacy that holds no weight in an scholastic debate.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Actually, yes you can. here is an example of that:
Doe v. Michigan (E.D. Mich. 1989)

The student identified only as "Doe" was not punished under the campus' speech code, rather, he sued because he feared that his theories could potentially be seen as hateful under the speech code.

Completely and totally different kind of law. So I can sue someone because I know they're driving without insurance? I can sue them and claim that if they did hit me they'd total my car. Since my car is worth $10k, they should pay me $10k right now because they're driving without insurance.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Completely and totally different kind of law. So I can sue someone because I know they're driving without insurance? I can sue them and claim that if they did hit me they'd total my car. Since my car is worth $10k, they should pay me $10k right now because they're driving without insurance.

You'd have to prove that them not having insurance harms you. It doesn't. Them totaling your car is what harms you. They could pay for the damages out of pocket or end up taking out a loan, for all you know.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Its illegal to drive without insurance in Ireland.
Its awful. I cower in fear in the corner in fear of my government trying to ensure if someone fcuks my car up that they pay for the damage they caused. Darn government!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Its illegal to drive without insurance in Ireland.
Its awful. I cower in fear in the corner in fear of my government trying to ensure if someone fcuks my car up that they pay for the damage they caused. Darn government!

That's Ireland. There is no federal auto insurance mandate in the United States.
Also, health insurance is for your benefit, while liability auto insurance is for the benefit of others.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Actually, yes you can. here is an example of that:
Doe v. Michigan (E.D. Mich. 1989)

The student identified only as "Doe" was not punished under the campus' speech code, rather, he sued because he feared that his theories could potentially be seen as hateful under the speech code.



In order for your fallacious argument to work, you have to establish how every citizen under a privatized system would be forced to pay for the service. You've yet to do this yet, so you're simply making another straw man argument.

Wait one second I thought you said you couldn't sue on potential damages. As in music artists couldn't sue based on possible record sales loss do to illegal downloading. Now you say people can sue for potential damages.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That's Ireland. There is no federal auto insurance mandate in the United States.
Also, health insurance is for your benefit, while liability auto insurance is for the benefit of others.

But isnt the government infringing my rights?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

But isnt the government infringing my rights?

European governments do all kinds of things that attack fundamental liberty. They diminish freedom of speech with their hate speech laws that would never fly here in America.

 

[ElasticNinja]

European governments do all kinds of things that attack fundamental liberty. They diminish freedom of speech with their hate speech laws that would never fly here in America.

hmmmm... I have the liberty to get care whatever my income, the liberty to get a decent education, the liberty to criticise my government, the liberty to criticise peoples religions, the liberty to be able to continue to live a halfway decent life whatever happens to financially.
hmmmm...

 

[Steven58]

Small edits done to certain posts. Please keep to the issues. Ty!