And it is also your choice to answer my question, or not. But I will ask you again. What would you do? Would you choose to instruct your contractor to put out the fire on your neighbour's house?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Canadian Healthcare. Is It Really Better Than The United States?
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
From what I gather thus far, it appears to be a mood thingy.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
If they can afford to buy a house, they can afford to pay for emergency services.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Nope.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
You do realize how expensive that could be, right? My guess is that it would probably cost about $5000 per hour...
buddhist
Well-Known Member
If I'm on good terms with my neighbor, sure I probably would.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't be much difference between a toll or a tax.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
That does not bode well, I'm afraid. Care to rethink the whole shebang?
Does that mean that you will put your own house in danger from the fire if you don't like your neighbour?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No. Am I supposed to forecast, anticipate, and fulfill the needs or wants of everyone?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No, why should I?
Because your house is in danger if your neighbour's house is on fire. To allow the fire on your neighbour's house to burn is foolish. I am trying to get you to see that putting out the fire on your neighbour's house is in your own enlightened self-interest. The fire, if it is allowed to burn, will spread. Don't you see this?
If your neighbour is walking around with an infectious disease, it is in your enlightened self-interest to have your neighbour cured, for your own protection. Don't you see this?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No. If he infects me or otherwise measurably harms me, then there is ground for a lawsuit - after the fact. Otherwise, I cannot trespass against his personal sovereignty.
You can sue him, but you might be dead, or otherwise permanently harmed. Your house may be gone, you or your family could be killed in the fire.
I am astonished by your foolishness.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I must say I am incredibly glad that your position is extremely rare to come by. It sounds as something that came from a novel's character.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Why should I be, if I protect myself by engaging the services of a fire fighting contractor?
Augustus
…
Having fragmented, for profit, private emergency services seriously reduces the quality of service, capacity, response time, specialist equipment available, etc.
Firefighters also deal with road traffic accidents and the like, if someone was uninsured should their family just be left trapped inside a mangled vehicle because the breadwinner decided they didn't want to pay for cover?
Some things just work better when they are provided as public services and fulfill basic standards of common decency expected in a civilised society.
Also families being left homeless costs the taxpayer a lot more money than putting out a fire, unless they are left to sleep on the streets.
The fire service probably costs you less than $40 a year. Are you really that tight fisted that it causes you anguish to be 'robbed' by 'freeloaders' for such an amount? I would pay $40 just to not have to do the paperwork for a private contractor. My time is worth more than that.
But you are saying you will wait till your house is on fire. That is foolish.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
It's called libertarianism. We believe in freedom for all, and likewise the assumption of full personal responsibility. We do not advocate "prevention", because everyone has their own ideas about "prevention".
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No, I'm all for complete freedom of choice and conscience. It's not about being miserly.
What do you have against freedom?