Chrysler Voyager Honda Odyssey Nissan Quest

Chevy Trailblazer Ford Excursion Ford Explorer

Chrysler Chevy Ford

Three Persuasive Strategies: Ethos: an ethical appeal; this establishes your credibility and that you’re a good and trustworthy person. Pathos: this is an appeal to the emotions; here, we try to stir your feelings to sway you to our side. Logos: this is a strategy based on facts and evidence to prove a point.

List of all the public services you can think of -Electric -Water -Police….etc.

Electricity Education Environmental protection Fire service Gas Health care Law enforcement Military Public broadcasting Public library Public security Public transportation Public housing Social services Telecommunications Town planning Waste management Water supply network

Now….Your Top 5 Prioritize or rank your list in order of importance/what you're most willing to pay for via taxes/donations

Now…. Pick two services on your Top 5 list you're willing to cut/get rid of.

Interview with a Volunteer Firefighter Yeah I'll say this, not sure if it was volunteer or not but my honest opinion is everyone wants something for nothing; equipment is not free and if you don't pay the fee why is it their responsibility to help you with county run FD? You pay with taxes and the fact that they went to protect the houses of the people that paid means they did their job. If people were trapped they would have got them out but protecting property if you don't pay taxes they take your house so I don’t see the difference: no pay no service as far as I'm concerned. To me those people took a gamble and lost; they knew the risk and chose not to pay.

Jim Picht ’ s article seems quite balanced. I ’ m not entirely sure where he stands on the South Fulton Fire debate because he operates as a sort of mediator. However, Picht doesn ’ t really offer any concrete solutions to Mr. Cranick ’ s dilemma. If I were a fireman, I would find it more than challenging to just watch a man ’ s home burn; on the other hand, how could the fire department even operate without the necessary funds to maintain equipment and staff? Picht notes that people must pay ahead of time for the service, just like any normal insurance plan because if “ you let people buy insurance only after they get sick, there will be no insurance ” (54). Indeed, the $75 fee doesn ’ t seem unreasonable, and I ’ m also not quite sold on Mr. Cranick ’ s memory lapse excuse. I suppose what we need is a severe monetary penalty for citizens who don ’ t pay the upfront fee yet need the services in dire circumstances. Mr. Crankick noted in the video that he was willing to pay “ whatever ” the cost for the fire to be extinguished. Maybe he should have had to pay $5,000 dollars for gambling with fire.

The man had a choice of whether or not he wanted to pay for fire protection. He knew that by not paying the $75 dollar fee, there was a certain risk involved. Frankly, I don't feel much sympathy during the video when he talks about losing his property, dogs, and cats, due to the fact that he was aware that he could lose all of those things if he chose to forego fire protection. The part that is especially baffling to me is that he discusses 3 other cases of house fires in the small community of South Fulton. If he knows that fires have been a recurring theme in his community of only about 2,000 people, then it would seem to be a worthy investment to pay a mere $75 annually. Unfortunately for this man, he can also not justify his case by saying he "forgot" due to his old age. How does the IRS respond when we "forget" to pay taxes? The firemen did the correct thing. They have to stand by the purpose paying the fee.

Although there are multiple points to be made concerning each side of the argument, I believe the firemen’s actions were unjustified. Gene Cranick, the owner of the property, had not paid the $75 to have fire protection for 2 consecutive years, and unfortunately he lost all of his valuables, some pets, and a home in this gamble. It was the firemen’s duty to put out that fire with or without Gene Cranick’s house on the list of properties that had been covered. The problem that rises, however, is that the $75 supports the fire department, and without this fee the cost for this service would be exceedingly large after the fire rescue has occurred; the fire department depends on the $75 from every household to remain functional. It would be unreasonable not to have this fee. “If you let people buy insurance only after they get sick, there will be no insurance. They’ll end up having to pay full cost of medical services” (Picht 54). So the fee should increase by a constant rate after every month the fee is not paid; this would increase the property owner’s obligation to pay, or fire protection can just be included in public taxes. The firemen are there to help the community so citizens don’t lose all of their valuables and possessions; they need to do their job whenever possible. We need them just as much or more than they need us.

The fact that firefighters can blatantly ignore a burning house makes me angry. It’s not morally right to watch someone’s home burn down because they didn’t pay a small fee. This article demonstrates one of the many problems our society has. After our discussion, my class decided there should be a middle ground, one where a home is saved but money is still paid. Though, I still believe the fire should have been put out even if someone didn’t have the means to pay. After all, “A public good is a good that must be provided to all if it’s provided to any in a society (53).