5 ms·

But it would be even better for everyone if the well-off person spent those resources on additional public fire fighters. Maybe a new (closer) fire station, bet

But it would be even better for everyone if the well-off person spent those resources on additional public fire fighters. Maybe a new (closer) fire station, better trucks, more full-time fighters to staff it, etc. Work with the local government to help keep it going after an initial cash infusion. That said, I have no idea what the cost difference would be here, and I'm aware there are other potential negatives. I was just pointing out there are more options on the table, ones that would benefit both parties even more.

noirbot 7y ago
Potentially, but just because people aren't doing the 100% most altruistic thing all the time doesn't mean they should be shamed for doing something that seems, at worst, neutral to everyone else. "What if rich people gave away all their money to causes I support" is almost always a valid position, but one that doesn't really help advance any discussion of the merits of any other action that's more viable.
- TheCraiggers 7y ago
  It's not the most altruistic thing. If the problem is that their new expensive house has inadequate firefighter coverage, helping fund a closer one is very much in their interest. Having the locals fund it after you've helped get it off the ground and the charitable write-offs you could probably get aren't either. If they were funding a fire station in a third world country where they have zero business interests, than sure, call it altruism. But I was just trying to show that there are more options, some potentially even better for everybody.
  - david38 7y ago
    I disagree. If my house is in danger, I’m going to protect it, no the whole town. I already pay taxes for the town’s coverage but I cannot support everyone. I’m pretty sure wealthy owners have done the math and know exactly where altruism begins. Now if all my neighbors want to put a lot more money into the pot, then we can talk.
gambiting 7y ago
But you could put in/donate millions of dollars into your local fire station, and there is still no guarantee that they will come and save your house when it's on fire, because maybe someone else needed help first so they are all occupied. You could buy another 20 firetrucks and the problem still could happen. Sure, it's a great thing to do for the community, but from a personal point of view, I'd like to have both a functional public service and a guarantee that there are people on standby to help me in a fire(I mean, how is that different than a home alarm, which I am sure many of us not-so-rich people have? When the alarm triggers, the security company sends someone over to have a look before calling the police, so in a way you are already replacing public service with a private one for your own benefit)
hindsightbias 7y ago
It would be far, far better if every able-bodied person performed basic fire prevention mitigation on their property. It would be far better for those replacing their roofs to use fire-rate shingles, or for county/city codes to mandate improvements. The well-off can pay someone to do that, and can afford to live in environments where the new normal is >75 mph winds. I doubt any amount of public investment can make it safe for the masses, short of long-term acceptance of blackouts being the new normal.
- david38 7y ago
  Building codes have already made it so safe for the masses that fire departments often have a tough time justifying their own existence. Everyone is already doing basic mitigation unless they are breaking the law.

noirbot 7y ago

Potentially, but just because people aren't doing the 100% most altruistic thing all the time doesn't mean they should be shamed for doing something that seems, at worst, neutral to everyone else. "What if rich people gave away all their money to causes I support" is almost always a valid position, but one that doesn't really help advance any discussion of the merits of any other action that's more viable.

TheCraiggers 7y ago
It's not the most altruistic thing. If the problem is that their new expensive house has inadequate firefighter coverage, helping fund a closer one is very much in their interest. Having the locals fund it after you've helped get it off the ground and the charitable write-offs you could probably get aren't either. If they were funding a fire station in a third world country where they have zero business interests, than sure, call it altruism. But I was just trying to show that there are more options, some potentially even better for everybody.
- david38 7y ago
  I disagree. If my house is in danger, I’m going to protect it, no the whole town. I already pay taxes for the town’s coverage but I cannot support everyone. I’m pretty sure wealthy owners have done the math and know exactly where altruism begins. Now if all my neighbors want to put a lot more money into the pot, then we can talk.

gambiting 7y ago

But you could put in/donate millions of dollars into your local fire station, and there is still no guarantee that they will come and save your house when it's on fire, because maybe someone else needed help first so they are all occupied. You could buy another 20 firetrucks and the problem still could happen. Sure, it's a great thing to do for the community, but from a personal point of view, I'd like to have both a functional public service and a guarantee that there are people on standby to help me in a fire(I mean, how is that different than a home alarm, which I am sure many of us not-so-rich people have? When the alarm triggers, the security company sends someone over to have a look before calling the police, so in a way you are already replacing public service with a private one for your own benefit)

hindsightbias 7y ago

It would be far, far better if every able-bodied person performed basic fire prevention mitigation on their property. It would be far better for those replacing their roofs to use fire-rate shingles, or for county/city codes to mandate improvements. The well-off can pay someone to do that, and can afford to live in environments where the new normal is >75 mph winds. I doubt any amount of public investment can make it safe for the masses, short of long-term acceptance of blackouts being the new normal.

david38 7y ago
Building codes have already made it so safe for the masses that fire departments often have a tough time justifying their own existence. Everyone is already doing basic mitigation unless they are breaking the law.