I sent a query to the candidates for mayor and heard the following replies:
Candidate A: (crickets chirping)

Candidate B: (I had a bit more exchange with this candidate. I have not asked permission to post, so all identifying information has been removed.)
NIB: I am considering candidates for mayor and wanted your thoughts on a situation in Tennessee a few years ago: (link below) a home owner did not pay the premium for the fire coverage and when his home caught fire, did not respond until a neighbor’s yard who did pay the premium caught fire. The fire fighters were present to watch the house burn to the ground. Were their actions justified? Why or why not? Thank you for your thoughts.

CB:Firefighters in (Bugberg), Texas are paid out of the General Fund and are obligated to fight each and every fire within the city limits. We do not charge home owners for fire protection.

NIB:Thank you for your reply. To further the thought, I was not speaking about our situation, but rather referring to theirs and wanted your impressions. Thank you.

CB:To quote Daffy Duck: I think that their actions were “despicable”.

NIB:Thank you for your reply. The deeper question in this is what was the responsibility of the homeowner and should that homeowner suffer the consequences of his actions (or in this case, the lack of action) or should the community prevent an individual from the results of their behavior?

CB: (crickets chirping)

*I will give this one credit for at least replying and interacting with my queries.

CC: At least in (Bugberg), I do not believe the city is privy to information from private insurance carriers as to who has and does not have homeowners insurance. Secondly, public safety officials have a duty and obligation to serve and protect all of its residents.

I have been debating sending a more direct query to Candidate C, since at least I received a reply. I find it interesting, but not surprising that neither of them approached the idea of individual responsibility, and when mentioned, the one did not reply. From my perspective, what is presented is the desire for mercy, but that is not the purpose of government. If a person wants to provide mercy, they can take from their own proceeds and provide that provision to the one in need. It is not the place of government to decide who is “needy” and forcibly take from citizens to provide that designated need. To quote someone who knew our Constitution: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Advertisements