There are such things as moral right and wrong. Morally what they did was wrong. I cant say what I think of this bunch. I cant demonise them enough. Where I come from real Firefighters would tar and feather them.
From the second AP article.
"Rural Monett members have not been asked to choose between memberships and tax support, though they came out strongly against a proposed Aurora Rural Bi-County Fire Protection District, which was voted down in 2001."
It sounds like they voted down a government tax based fire protection district. It could have been the huge Hispanic population that helped vote it down.
You're saying that it morally wrong for the unpaid firefighters to be hesitant to risk their lives to protect property?
It's just property. They did say they would assist if lives were at risk. There is a big difference here. It's just material goods.
Indeed there are. However this isn't one of those things. The man chose not to learn the standards of his new community. That's his fault and his ignorance. Should we now protect people from their own ignorance of the law?
Morally what they did was wrong.
They did nothing moral or immoral. They were fulfilling their contract to the citizens that had paid for their service.
Where I come from real Firefighters would tar and feather them
Where you come from, if the firefighters are existing off the government teat, their actions are far from moral. I did not ask, request, or demand that any group of men protect my property. However, if I contract them out to do so, their services will be worth what I paid for them as they realize they are in effect working for one of their employers.
You said, in part: There are such things as moral right and wrong. Morally what they did was wrong.
***
I hate the result here, but some of the thinking on this thread is hopelessly liberal, and short-sighted. The thinking of those who would save this guy's property is exemplary of liberals who are willing to let guilty criminals go free because of a bad upbringing, or give money to single mothers with 5 or 6 kids "because they need it" when to do so does nothing but encourage more of the same irresponsible behavior. People are watching. People learn, quickly, how to game the system.
Why not make it clear in the policy: Listen folks, we'd like you to pay, but we are telling you up front, if you don't pay, you still get the service-- or, you can pay when we arrive to put out the fire-- or not, because we don't want to be thought of as mean-spirited, even if you don't pay when we show up, we STILL will provide the service. Many will still pay because it is the right thing to do, but many, probably most, will not, because they don't "have to."
Look at church giving. We don't demand donations at church, much less tithing. You still get to hear the sermon and the music. You still get communion, and heat in the winter, a/c in the summer. That's the deal churches make on the front end. And anyone who has reviewed church finances knows that 20% of the members give more than 80% of the offering.