2 ms·
You're ignoring what I just wrote. Also, a "protection racket" is when some thugs retaliate against you if you don't pay them, not when people refuse to provid
by Semiapies 16y ago
You're ignoring what I just wrote.
Also, a "protection racket" is when some thugs retaliate against you if you don't pay them, not when people refuse to provide a service you've previously refused to pay for.
I also have a dim view of the laws of the Alaskan city, but there's no call to throw around accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" and such just because you're angry, too.
- elbrodeur 16y agoI did gloss over your main point, sorry. Insurance does work. It worked in this case: The neighbors houses were saved. But when insurance is the ONLY means by which a burning house can be saved we should rethink how we treat emergencies.
- tptacek 16y agoYes. People should not be allowed to build residences in areas that don't have suitable fire coverage; the fees and taxes required to enlist surrounding communities into protecting them should be mandatory.
- duck 16y agoI don't want anyone telling me I can't build on land I own just because I can't get fire protection.
- tptacek 16y agoTough, is what I think. Build wherever you want, but expect to pay extra for putting fire departments in the position you're putting them in.
- Semiapies 16y agoThat seems fair to me, as opposed to simply banning people from living in the boonies.
- duck 16y agoWell, most people that live in an area that doesn't have fire coverage know this and understand it. I guess these people didn't (or maybe when your house is one fire you forget). What I am saying is as long as you understand this everything is fine, for both sides.