Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Kaneman, you still don't get it. This is not a case of a tyrannical government oppressing its citizens.
This man had a choice. Either have the means and a plan to handle any fire-related contingencies on his property, or pay someone else a small annual fee to have those capabilities for him. He chose to handle it himself rather than pay the fee. When the shit hit the fan, he found it was beyond his capabilities and tried to get retroactive coverage.
If the firefighters had done what you seem to think was the "right thing to do", they would be undermining their entire system. The system may need revising, and after this event it no doubt will get that, but in the meantime, it has to be upheld or everybody will be SOL.
Please, save me the bleeding heart bullshit. If you want less goverment interference in your life (as you clearly seem to want), then you have to be prepared to provide for yourself as well. This man chose to have less government involvement by refusing to retain the services of a fire department. That means he's on his own here. You can't have it both ways.
|
I think the whole point of this debate is that those firefighters allowed 4 animals to burn to death. Its the same thing as seeing an accident of a biker who didn't wear gear and then say fuck it. He deserves what he gets, then drive off.
Everything in this world doesn't have to have a fucking dollar sign attached to it.