View Poll Results: should smoke detectors be required for private residences?
yes
14
66.67%
no
7
33.33%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll
smoke detectors
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Canada
Originally posted by whistler
I just question the nature of personal responsibility. What does that really mean in an interwoven society such as ours?
Whistler
I just question the nature of personal responsibility. What does that really mean in an interwoven society such as ours?
Whistler
To keep it simple I'd suggest this - the fact your insurance premiums would double, or that you might not have insurance at all, would likely be enough to effectively "mandate" the use of smoke detectors, $20 or $200,000 would seem an obvious choice. However, it would still be your personal choice to go without, and gov't would not be involved.
If you go without and your house burns down, you just lost the value of your house, either you have a job, friends and family and you get back on your feet, or your homeless and on welfare - the case you forsee, the worst case, and definately problematic.
This is question is really beyond my abillity to answer, the complexities are endless. I just know that my gut feeling is that personal freedom trumps public burden, though I'm not sure I could logically defend that position. Especially given the complexities of out society and the manner in which we deal with the problems of others.
Waxy
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Both of my scenarios presented in this thread (when do we become adults and why should I pay a firefighter to save an idiot) were more or less rhetorical in nature designed only to promote (provoke?) conversation.
I completely agree that this could get pretty deep, pretty quick. I do question the utility of keeping it simple outside of FTE. I recognize that there is only so much we could cover in a limited space such as this but in the 'real world'?
I think these are the types of issues that must be taken seriously in the coming decades. This is especially imperative considering everything is moving towards a singular global society whether we like it or not.
What is the role of the individual in society? Corporations? Government? What is freedom in a completely enmeshed society? How is it that one sock always gets lost in every load of laundry? (When you start taking yourself too seriously, it is always good to step back and laugh.)
I think it would be far better to have deep, complex dialogue over these issues before they develop into crisis/right now situations.
Who wants to get the ball rolling?
Whistler
I completely agree that this could get pretty deep, pretty quick. I do question the utility of keeping it simple outside of FTE. I recognize that there is only so much we could cover in a limited space such as this but in the 'real world'?
I think these are the types of issues that must be taken seriously in the coming decades. This is especially imperative considering everything is moving towards a singular global society whether we like it or not.
What is the role of the individual in society? Corporations? Government? What is freedom in a completely enmeshed society? How is it that one sock always gets lost in every load of laundry? (When you start taking yourself too seriously, it is always good to step back and laugh.)
I think it would be far better to have deep, complex dialogue over these issues before they develop into crisis/right now situations.
Who wants to get the ball rolling?
Whistler
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
From: SLC
This IS a touchy subject same as the seatbelt thread. Like Waxy said, there are two issues at hand
Personal Freedoms
Public Burden
How do we rationally and legally draw the line on what is deemed in the best public interest and what is governmental intrusion?
If you think these two questions are tough to answer imagine if we were a TRUE democracy as opposed to a Republic...
I do believe that if something threatens public safety it should be regulated such as speeding DUI/DWI and even Smoke Detectors in apartments and homes in close proximity to each other. But for this thread I voted no.
Personal Freedoms
Public Burden
How do we rationally and legally draw the line on what is deemed in the best public interest and what is governmental intrusion?
If you think these two questions are tough to answer imagine if we were a TRUE democracy as opposed to a Republic...
I do believe that if something threatens public safety it should be regulated such as speeding DUI/DWI and even Smoke Detectors in apartments and homes in close proximity to each other. But for this thread I voted no.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
From: northern Ky
my point
Great responses - now I'll zero in on the ONE point I want to make from all this, and then throw my arms over my head and duck down. 
I'll try to be as breif as I can.
I wish I would have worded the poll question a little differently, like do you think smoke detectors should be required COMPLETE WITH HOME INSPECTIONS, but I don't think the results would have been too much different.
Almost all the same arguments for or against smoke detector laws can be used for or against seatbelt laws. I'm thinking about the enforcement of it more than anything. Someone said the cost and logistics of firemen "inspections" of homes for smoke detectors would be astronomical. I disagree - I live in an area that has auto emissions testing, and I don't see any way that it could be more costly or complicated than that. Firemen are too busy?? - I say policemen are too busy to be writing seatbelt tickets with all the real crime that is going on around us.
These types of laws come about by insurance lobbying more than anything else, they are one of the most powerful lobbies around, because their bottom line and our safety go hand in hand. It's easier for them to fund a political campaign, and have their bought and paid for politician do the safety enforcement with tax money, than for them to do it themselves. I don't think there are any laws that prohibit insurance companies from doing any inspection of their customers that they want, but with the competition they have for auto and home insurance, it wouldn't be worth it for them. Their customers would find some other company that didn't bother them with inspections. That's not true however, with a type of insurance that isn't very competitive, like a high risk insurance - commercial dump truck insurance. I own one, and even with no past claims of any kind, an insurance inspector visits me, inspects my truck, and threatens to cancel me if my truck doesn't comply with DOT rules. He bills me for the inspection also.
But it's really not important if it's firemen, or any other government representative that would do home smoke detector inspections. Whoever it is, they could be easily trained to go a few baby steps further, to protect us, and keep our insurance rates down. A quick glance around to see if there might be any illegal drug use going on?? They would quietly report it later. How about noticing if any children they see show any signs of child abuse? Child abuse agencies would love it. How about a quick glance in the refrigerator to see if there's more than one 12 pack in there?? MADD would shell out some political contributions to get that done, I'll bet!!
I'll bet there are a few here who support seat belt laws, that would be furious at the thought of someone checking their beer supply. Remember, if it happens, it will be partially your own fault. The freedom erosion process happens one step at a time. A government beer check today is no more ridiculous than the thought of seatbelt laws were 30 short years ago.
marc
I'll try to be as breif as I can.I wish I would have worded the poll question a little differently, like do you think smoke detectors should be required COMPLETE WITH HOME INSPECTIONS, but I don't think the results would have been too much different.
Almost all the same arguments for or against smoke detector laws can be used for or against seatbelt laws. I'm thinking about the enforcement of it more than anything. Someone said the cost and logistics of firemen "inspections" of homes for smoke detectors would be astronomical. I disagree - I live in an area that has auto emissions testing, and I don't see any way that it could be more costly or complicated than that. Firemen are too busy?? - I say policemen are too busy to be writing seatbelt tickets with all the real crime that is going on around us.
These types of laws come about by insurance lobbying more than anything else, they are one of the most powerful lobbies around, because their bottom line and our safety go hand in hand. It's easier for them to fund a political campaign, and have their bought and paid for politician do the safety enforcement with tax money, than for them to do it themselves. I don't think there are any laws that prohibit insurance companies from doing any inspection of their customers that they want, but with the competition they have for auto and home insurance, it wouldn't be worth it for them. Their customers would find some other company that didn't bother them with inspections. That's not true however, with a type of insurance that isn't very competitive, like a high risk insurance - commercial dump truck insurance. I own one, and even with no past claims of any kind, an insurance inspector visits me, inspects my truck, and threatens to cancel me if my truck doesn't comply with DOT rules. He bills me for the inspection also.
But it's really not important if it's firemen, or any other government representative that would do home smoke detector inspections. Whoever it is, they could be easily trained to go a few baby steps further, to protect us, and keep our insurance rates down. A quick glance around to see if there might be any illegal drug use going on?? They would quietly report it later. How about noticing if any children they see show any signs of child abuse? Child abuse agencies would love it. How about a quick glance in the refrigerator to see if there's more than one 12 pack in there?? MADD would shell out some political contributions to get that done, I'll bet!!
I'll bet there are a few here who support seat belt laws, that would be furious at the thought of someone checking their beer supply. Remember, if it happens, it will be partially your own fault. The freedom erosion process happens one step at a time. A government beer check today is no more ridiculous than the thought of seatbelt laws were 30 short years ago.
marc
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,848
Likes: 1
From: Kentucky
Re: my point
Originally posted by marc9000
Great responses - now I'll zero in on the ONE point I want to make from all this, and then throw my arms over my head and duck down. I'll try to be as breif as I can.
I wish I would have worded the poll question a little differently, like do you think smoke detectors should be required COMPLETE WITH HOME INSPECTIONS, but I don't think the results would have been too much different.
Almost all the same arguments for or against smoke detector laws can be used for or against seatbelt laws. I'm thinking about the enforcement of it more than anything. Someone said the cost and logistics of firemen "inspections" of homes for smoke detectors would be astronomical. I disagree - I live in an area that has auto emissions testing, and I don't see any way that it could be more costly or complicated than that. Firemen are too busy?? - I say policemen are too busy to be writing seatbelt tickets with all the real crime that is going on around us.
These types of laws come about by insurance lobbying more than anything else, they are one of the most powerful lobbies around, because their bottom line and our safety go hand in hand. It's easier for them to fund a political campaign, and have their bought and paid for politician do the safety enforcement with tax money, than for them to do it themselves. I don't think there are any laws that prohibit insurance companies from doing any inspection of their customers that they want, but with the competition they have for auto and home insurance, it wouldn't be worth it for them. Their customers would find some other company that didn't bother them with inspections. That's not true however, with a type of insurance that isn't very competitive, like a high risk insurance - commercial dump truck insurance. I own one, and even with no past claims of any kind, an insurance inspector visits me, inspects my truck, and threatens to cancel me if my truck doesn't comply with DOT rules. He bills me for the inspection also.
But it's really not important if it's firemen, or any other government representative that would do home smoke detector inspections. Whoever it is, they could be easily trained to go a few baby steps further, to protect us, and keep our insurance rates down. A quick glance around to see if there might be any illegal drug use going on?? They would quietly report it later. How about noticing if any children they see show any signs of child abuse? Child abuse agencies would love it. How about a quick glance in the refrigerator to see if there's more than one 12 pack in there?? MADD would shell out some political contributions to get that done, I'll bet!!
I'll bet there are a few here who support seat belt laws, that would be furious at the thought of someone checking their beer supply. Remember, if it happens, it will be partially your own fault. The freedom erosion process happens one step at a time. A government beer check today is no more ridiculous than the thought of seatbelt laws were 30 short years ago.
marc
Great responses - now I'll zero in on the ONE point I want to make from all this, and then throw my arms over my head and duck down.
I'll try to be as breif as I can.I wish I would have worded the poll question a little differently, like do you think smoke detectors should be required COMPLETE WITH HOME INSPECTIONS, but I don't think the results would have been too much different.
Almost all the same arguments for or against smoke detector laws can be used for or against seatbelt laws. I'm thinking about the enforcement of it more than anything. Someone said the cost and logistics of firemen "inspections" of homes for smoke detectors would be astronomical. I disagree - I live in an area that has auto emissions testing, and I don't see any way that it could be more costly or complicated than that. Firemen are too busy?? - I say policemen are too busy to be writing seatbelt tickets with all the real crime that is going on around us.
These types of laws come about by insurance lobbying more than anything else, they are one of the most powerful lobbies around, because their bottom line and our safety go hand in hand. It's easier for them to fund a political campaign, and have their bought and paid for politician do the safety enforcement with tax money, than for them to do it themselves. I don't think there are any laws that prohibit insurance companies from doing any inspection of their customers that they want, but with the competition they have for auto and home insurance, it wouldn't be worth it for them. Their customers would find some other company that didn't bother them with inspections. That's not true however, with a type of insurance that isn't very competitive, like a high risk insurance - commercial dump truck insurance. I own one, and even with no past claims of any kind, an insurance inspector visits me, inspects my truck, and threatens to cancel me if my truck doesn't comply with DOT rules. He bills me for the inspection also.
But it's really not important if it's firemen, or any other government representative that would do home smoke detector inspections. Whoever it is, they could be easily trained to go a few baby steps further, to protect us, and keep our insurance rates down. A quick glance around to see if there might be any illegal drug use going on?? They would quietly report it later. How about noticing if any children they see show any signs of child abuse? Child abuse agencies would love it. How about a quick glance in the refrigerator to see if there's more than one 12 pack in there?? MADD would shell out some political contributions to get that done, I'll bet!!
I'll bet there are a few here who support seat belt laws, that would be furious at the thought of someone checking their beer supply. Remember, if it happens, it will be partially your own fault. The freedom erosion process happens one step at a time. A government beer check today is no more ridiculous than the thought of seatbelt laws were 30 short years ago.
marc
You have very good intentions on peoples personal safety and that is commendable. But you know, my home is my last stand, my santuary, the final place I can go that SOMEONE (other than my wife) is not telling me what to do. I would really like to keep it that way and keep "companies" out of my last hiding place. Your thoughts on saving the stupid are noble, but Ive been that way for 51 years, no changing me now. I keep all my SD's in working order, 120 v w/battery backup, with carbon monoxide detectors. I remember back when the "hot" debate at work with fellow employees was going on, that the word was out that seat belt laws could become mandated. WOW, this one guy would stand up, pound the table and say " seat belts will KEEP our insurance rates from skyrocketing because less people will be killed and injured !!!! " O.K. I dont think that one worked out quite like he envisioned, yes it saved lives, no, insurance companies didnt cut rates. The world your picturing comes to mind when I watch the movie Demolition Man. A GREAT movie, but do I want to live in a world like that ?, naw, let me eat salt, have sex the nasty normal way, plus I dont like Taco Bell, cheers guy
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Skip1970
General NON-Automotive Conversation
69
Jan 21, 2011 01:32 AM
F2504x4
General NON-Automotive Conversation
6
Jun 3, 2006 06:05 PM
