Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 11:55:14 AM

Quote from: Hawker on April 26, 2013, 11:08:51 AM

Quote from: Traktion on April 26, 2013, 10:06:50 AM

...snip...

If they were mortgage free and didn't pay, well, that's pretty dumb isn't it? If someone ends ends up losing their house due to such stupidity, they only have themselves to blame.

Really, this sort of stuff isn't complicated.

Blaming people for a mistake is fine. Destroying their home over a $75 fee is not. It may feel clever to say "Sucks to be you" but that is not a valid basis for organising a society.

The firemen didn't destroy anything - the fire did. The firemen didn't start the fire either.

The firemen are not slaves of foolish home owners. If home owners want them to labour on their behalf, using their equipment, then they should pay the firemen to do it.

Moreover, they should take steps to avoid their house burning down. Fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire buckets/blankets, not smoking in doors etc - all would reduce their premium. Not asking for people to pay for insurance creates a free rider problem - why should they invest in ways to prevent fires, when they can just call someone to put it out for 'free'?

Requesting insurance and/or subscriptions to service providers is hardly disorganised. It is voluntary and allows people to pay for what they need.

Its also the most inefficient possible way of doing things. The fire truck was paid for - it was at the fire - it watched the home burn down because someone wanted to make a point.

Inefficient? Paying $75 a year in subs is hardly complicated.

The car on my drive is paid for too, but that doesn't mean get to threaten me if I don't chauffeur you around in it.