Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When reason and justice are compromised no good comes from it

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
SargeUNN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 03:07 AM
Original message
When reason and justice are compromised no good comes from it
Let's look at the story of the man's house and the fee of 75 dollars. Ok some say the fire department did the right thing, but my question is this, was it reasonable, and just? I say no because it was harsh and unusual punishment. The man lost valuables and personal keepsakes, pets were lost that belong to another, the equipment was on hand even used to keep the fire from spreading to the neighboring houses. Wouldn't it be more sensible and reasonable to save the house, and then have the man pay the $75 plus a substantial but reasonable fine? Wouldn't it be more cost effect to save the house and reduce the amount the insurance company would have paid to rebuild the part of the house ruined by the fire than paying for the entire house which in turn cost each person paying into the company more? Wouldn't it be more humane to save the pets instead of sitting by and watching as the firefighters were reported to have done?

So who got what they deserved? Seems to me a lot of people lost because of the stupidity of the one or ones who decided not to save this man's house over $75 and now if anyone can give me a rational answer to justify that the decision was justified then please I would love to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. It is the old arguement actually.
Should you help someone because they have something you want. Or should you help someone simply because they are a person or are hurting. Do you need to be paid in some way?

Within the money concepts of the world their are times when money is equated to what someone can have, mostly because that has made society work and operate, although it was more useful centuries ago.

But there should be a base line, so firefighters do not have to stand by and just watch a fire burn. There should be a way to help them if they don't have money. On some topics that create much suffering without any good, there should be a baseline where a person can help someone even if they are not a friend.

Or the firefighters can put the fire out anyways, and not follow the orders of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. They can put a lien on the property
So if it's ever sold the fire district has to be paid. It just sounds to me like that's a county that's stuck on stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to impose a mandatory fee -- a tax, if you will?
The political philosophy of the voluntary fee is intrinsically flawed. How do you change that mindset? This has been an issue in the county since at least 1987. How do you address the underlying moral flaw?

Sure, fines could have been imposed. And they might have been paid if the property owner chose to pay them. Those are voluntary too.

The laws as written leave the city in an impossible position, with a moral responsibility to provide service, without any means to enforce participation in cost sharing.

This tragic event is the logical, if heartless, outcome of a tragically flawed policy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. As far as I can tell Obion county is in Tennessee..
And North Fulton is in Kentucky..

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=obion+county+tn&um=1&ie=U...

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=south+fulton+tn&um=1&ie=U...

That makes it kind of hard for North Fulton to tax Obion county against the will of the residents of the county.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The county could impose a tax and contract with North Fulton.
You're right. Cities can't impose taxes outside of their jurisdiction. The county can, but won't because they don't want to impose mandatory fees. So the city is put in a position of providing free service or letting houses burn down. They can't place liens on property. They can't collect on fines.

It's not a sustainable system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Apparently it was 19-1 against a tax in the county...
My guess is it's not going to happen..

I really do not like that the man's home burned down, it's a horrible thing to have happen, I lost a home to fire in 1973.

But the system is utterly screwed up and the county residents seem to like it that way, or at least like it better than paying a modest tax to change it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAmused Donating Member (261 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. True, but
South Fulton, which I believe is on the TN side of Stateline RD is actually in TN. This isn't uncommon.Bristol TN is that way and so is Texarkana
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top