Libertarian Fire-Fighting in action - USA, where else?

BluePlanet

Just came across this story.

The Fire Chief was physically assaulted after letting a local resident's house burn, because the owner hadn't paid the "rural fire subscription service" fee.


http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/tennessee/tenn-chief-attacked-over-house-allowed-burn

What a wanker.

Let's hope this country puts that Libertarian "me-first" crap to the grave where it belongs.

Biggins

That how fire services in some places originally started out.
You had to pay up front to be covered by one service or another before they would even come to you.

orourkeda

Why do they have to pay for their fire services. Is it not covered by their taxes.

Cool Mo D

orourkeda wrote: »

Why do they have to pay for their fire services. Is it not covered by their taxes.

Fire services are supplied by city government in the states. They lived in a rural area, where there was very little local government, so the neighbouring town let the residents pay a (voluntary) subscription to be covered by their fire service. They didn't pay, they got no service when the house burned.

orourkeda

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Fire services are supplied by city government in the states. They lived in a rural area, where there was very little local government, so the neighbouring town let the residents pay a (voluntary) subscription to be covered by their fire service. They didn't pay, they got no service when the house burned.

I just hope they had house insurance

The fire came from the man's grandson burning rubbish.

The man's son had a similar fire in the past and hadn't paid his $75 but they put it out.

I guess he thought he could get a free ride and decided not to pay for three years.

He took a chance and it didn't pay off.

It's not nice but if your local community doesn't have a fire service don't expect your neighbouring one to provide it for free.

Four minute CNN clip:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/10/06/am.cranick.home.burns.cnn

Sharkey 10

would it be fair to say that libertarianism is a bit like social Darwinism?
I find this absolutely disgusting , and i bet if you asked those firemen what spiritual belief they hold they probably are Christian , what sort of Christian behaves like this.
Im a libertarian when it comes to things like drugs and alcohol , so im an al a carte libertarian i suppose.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

would it be fair to say that libertarianism is a bit like social Darwinism?

It owuld be fair to say about the breed of libertarianism seen in the USA which is effectively "I've got mine, now f*ck off" libertarianism.

GLaDOS

Should have paid in the first place.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so he doesn't pay the upkeep, his grandson starts a fire and he then expects someone else to possibly risk their life to defend his property?

and he's the good guy here, is that what you're saying?

Herb Powell

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

so he doesn't pay the upkeep, his grandson starts a fire and he then expects someone else to possibly risk their life to defend his property?

and he's the good guy here, is that what you're saying?

the fireman had the capability to save your man's house. the very least he could have done was to sort out the cost later.
but no, he had to be a dickhead

Sharkey 10

Sean_K wrote: »

It owuld be fair to say about the breed of libertarianism seen in the USA which is effectively "I've got mine, now f*ck off" libertarianism.

Its kind of ironic that the people who try to find faults in darwinisn are the ones who advocate it socially. Ie more ,more, more for me and fcuk the sick and needy.
This lack of action is disgusting and the people defending the fire mens lack of action (and they will be legion) need to take a step back and have a look at what there views say about themselves.
What if they couldnt afford the fee ?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

couldn't afford 75 dollars over an entire year to protect against your house burning down, yeah. that's not even 2 dollars a week, unless you're homeless you can afford 2 dollars a week to cover the cost of not having your house burn to the ground.

they knew the risk when they decided not to pay up, they gambled and lost. it's not nice, but it is fair.

Manic Moran

Save yourselves $500 a year by not having car insurance.

After your have an accident, call up the insurance company and say you'd like coverage now, thank you very much.

See how much luck you have.

Why do they have to pay for their fire services. Is it not covered by their taxes.

In a word, no, not in this case.

NTM

gizmo

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

Its kind of ironic that the people who try to find faults in darwinisn are the ones who advocate it socially. Ie more ,more, more for me and fcuk the sick and needy.
This lack of action is disgusting and the people defending the fire mens lack of action (and they will be legion) need to take a step back and have a look at what there views say about themselves.
What if they couldnt afford the fee ?

Herb Powell wrote: »

the fireman had the capability to save your man's house. the very least he could have done was to sort out the cost later.
but no, he had to be a dickhead

What happens if the guy hadn't been paying the sub for a few years, should he then have to pay it all back?

This is no different than house insurance tbh. You pay it in case something goes wrong. This guy thought he could get away with it and now is just pissed that it didn't work out and instead of just dealing with it he decides to physically assault someone who probably wasn't even involved.

Rented Mule

He didn't want this service until he needed it. He thought he was going to be cute and save a few quid.

THIS WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSCIOUS CHOICE THAT THE HOMEOWNER MADE.

If he didn't have Homeowners Insurance, is there a company somewhere that he is going to sue to rebuild his house ? Are they supposed to be guilty now ? Surely they could sort out the price afterward. Right ?

I wonder if they would have responded any differently if someone was trapped in the house. Or would they just let them burn to death because that's The American Way?

wes

Well, thats Capitalism in action for you .

Ruu_Old

I don't know how he managed to get away with not paying it anyway. Perhaps it varies from state to state. Mine is included on my property tax bill every year and paid through my mortgage (i live outside city limits so depend on a small, volunteer group of firefighters). Sad situation but as mentioned, they made the choice.

Rented Mule

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if they would have responded any differently if someone was trapped in the house. Or would they just let them burn to death because that's The American Way?

Surely, if the homeowner was going to deliberately and consciously make the choice, of his own free will, that he did not want this protection, he would have a secondary plan of his own in place ?

You can't jump out of a plane and then complain that you didn't buy a parachute.

Risteard

We were asked about this in our Economics lecture. Lecturer asked how many people thought the fire brigade was right and how many thought he was wrong.

I can kind of see both sides to argument. On one side, the fire brigade's side, one could adopt the attitude that if the F.B. did put out the fire and took the payment afterwards, then there could be some people who wouldn't pay at all and just pay if their house was on fire. Then nobody would pay regularly, I mean why would you pay for something that might happen if you can just deal with it if it does happen.

The other side though is that this was a man's house. His life, it's all well and good treating this like it was a piece of paper but now this man has no home despite the fact it could have been avoidable. If someone didn't have health insurance because they couldn't afford it (and there was no state healthcare of any kind) and was stabbed would the ambulance just leave him lying in the street?

In the end I think the F.B. was wrong. There are arguments to both sides and both have merits but IMO at the end of the day this man has lost his house despite the fact that it could have been prevented. And for what $75?

Mrmoe

The homeowner is at fault here. I am sure if there was a genuine threat to life then the firefighter would have done something. As it stands the home owner took a risk and it backfired.

TPD

Shock horror: somebody doesn't recieve a service they didn't pay for.

Rented Mule

TPD wrote: »

Shock horror: somebody doesn't recieve a service they didn't pay for.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

If these people believe that fire trucks, fire fighting equipment and fire fighters all just fall miraculously from the sky, perhaps they should have done a rain dance.

Terry

Mrmoe wrote: »

The homeowner is at fault here. I am sure if there was a genuine threat to life then the firefighter would have done something. As it stands the home owner took a risk and it backfired.

Being homeless isn't really healthy or safe.

A mentioned previously, they could have looked for a back payment after the fire.
This isn't like not paying your phone bill. This is about a man's home. It's about the difference between having a roof over your head and being homeless.
The fire chief is a selfish bastard.

Goodshape

The firefighters didn't fail at being bureaucratic and might have been correct in business and legal terms but as human beings, they let a man's house burn down over $75. That's pretty low, mister.

Really can't believe how there wasn't simply a post-incident fine handed out.

bnt

Well, the fire brigade could have acted like the medical emergency services: save your life, then give you the bill afterwards. The full bill for all costs incurred, not just the cost of the insurance. What does it cost to bring out a fire truck, with all the firemen, and put out a fire? Remind me, again, of what Insurance is for?

I've read Atlas Shrugged, and if there's one thing you can say about Ayn Rand's vision, it's this: stupid people have no place. You pay for everything you get, and you don't get that for which you don't pay, in some form. Absolute freedom to do as you wish comes in a package, alongside the absolute responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions. Call that "Survival of the Fittest", where "fittest" means the smartest.

K-9

False economy.

I'd say everybody will be making sure they pay the fee now.

Rented Mule

Goodshape wrote: »

Really can't believe how there wasn't simply a post-incident fine handed out.

Where are they supposed to send the bill ?

Goodshape

To the house that wasn't let burn to the ground.

sock puppet

They should just make everyone pay the fee to stop this happening.

Rented Mule

sock puppet wrote: »

They should just make everyone pay the fee to stop this happening.

Now that would be a government intrusion into their lives. You know the 'less government= more freedom' crowd.

Surely there is a better way to finance this. When you think about how inexpensive this is in the bigger picture @ $0.21 per day for this protection.

A simple tax on stupidity would obviously cover the bill for the entire State.

K-9

Maybe the guy who didn't pay was a libertarian?

Manic Moran

they let a man's house burn down over $75

The owner let the house burn down over $75. He just made the decision before the fire started.

Being homeless isn't really healthy or safe.

I agree. So I have paid for smoke alarms, house insurance...

A mentioned previously, they could have looked for a back payment after the fire.

Here's the problem. Those are retroactive prospects. The city fire service is budgeted to provide a certain level of coverage over a certain geographic area. If they need X many trucks to cover Y many square miles of the city, that much needs to be calculated and resourced in advance. If I were a tax-paying city dweller whose house was on fire, I would be extremely irked to discover that the reason my house burned down was because the fire truck calculated to cover my area was outside of the city, attending a fire which was not resourced for. Fine, the city budget for next week is sorted because they get a load of money back in, and the out-of-town homeowner is penalised for his transgression, but that does not help the city-dweller who has been paying his taxes and fees.

NTM

up for anything

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

so im an al a carte libertarian i suppose.

At the risk of being stoned by AH, I'm loving this. ^^^

karma_

Biggins wrote: »

That how fire services in some places originally started out.
You had to pay up front to be covered by one service or another before they would even come to you.

Yes, 2000 years ago, I know it's wishful thinking to believe that humanity has moved on in that time but it really hasn't.

I can't imagine a fireman standing and watching a family home burn down for want of 75 dollars, and then take action to save the next house, there is something very very wrong with that.

K-9

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here's the problem. Those are retroactive prospects. The city fire service is budgeted to provide a certain level of coverage over a certain geographic area. If they need X many trucks to cover Y many square miles of the city, that much needs to be calculated and resourced in advance. If I were a tax-paying city dweller whose house was on fire, I would be extremely irked to discover that the reason my house burned down was because the fire truck calculated to cover my area was outside of the city, attending a fire which was not resourced for. Fine, the city budget for next week is sorted because they get a load of money back in, and the out-of-town homeowner is penalised for his transgression, but that does not help the city-dweller who has been paying his taxes. and fees.

NTM

In fairness, they called out to the Neighbours house. They were out there anyway!

A quick flick of the hose would have done the trick! :cool:

sock puppet

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe the guy who didn't pay was a libertarian?

Fire services like this are exactly the type of thing libertarians support. If you think that his failure to pay is indicative of his political leanings it'd be far more likely that he's a socialist.

K-9

sock puppet wrote: »

Fire services like this are exactly the type of thing libertarians support. If you think that his failure to pay is indicative of his political leanings it'd be far more likely that he's a socialist.

Why more likely socialist? Socialists generally don't have a problem paying taxes or charges.

Tbh, I'd say he just is a tightarsist!

Manic Moran

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, they called out to the Neighbours house. They were out there anyway!

In this case, yes, but what if the next time the non-paying person's house is burning and he -doesn't- have a neighbour who's paid up? Should he be penalised for not having a paying neighbour by not having the FD 'out there anyway', compared to the guy in this instance?

NTM

marco_polo

sock puppet wrote: »

Fire services like this are exactly the type of thing libertarians support. If you think that his failure to pay is indicative of his political leanings it'd be far more likely that he's a socialist.

Whatever his prior leanings I'd say he is definately a socialist now.

sock puppet

K-9 wrote: »

Why more likely socialist? Socialists generally don't have a problem paying taxes or charges.

Tbh, I'd say he just is a tightarsist!

It's not really a tax as he doesn't have to pay it.

Nah I'd say he's an idiotcrat. He's in good company though. From what I hear it's the fastest growing political movement in America.

bonerm

He knew the game. He didn't pay. Fúck him.

Rented Mule

marco_polo wrote: »

Whatever his prior leanings I'd say he is definately a socialist now.

It's amazing how your leanings change when you don't have a place to live.

wotzgoingon

Its nearly as bad here. If u live in a city or large town and u call the fire brigade its free but if u live in the country and ring them u get charged but at least u dont have to pay for a service that u dont use untill u need it.

Amhran Nua

BluePlanet wrote: »

Let's hope this country puts that Libertarian "me-first" crap to the grave where it belongs.

I wouldn't worry about it, they take a hiding in the politics forum any time they start telling us how social welfare should be abolished, gold is the only worthwhile form of money, and the Irish potato famine was actually the Irish corn famine. Plus, the PDs, our local version, no longer exist due to nobody voting for them.

K-9

sock puppet wrote: »

It's not really a tax as he doesn't have to pay it.

Nah I'd say he's an idiotcrat. He's in good company though. From what I hear it's the fastest growing political movement in America.

More a charge alright.

The idiotcrats probably see a fire service charge as big government and high taxes.

Terry

Manic Moran wrote: »

The owner let the house burn down over $75. He just made the decision before the fire started.



I agree. So I have paid for smoke alarms, house insurance...



Here's the problem. Those are retroactive prospects. The city fire service is budgeted to provide a certain level of coverage over a certain geographic area. If they need X many trucks to cover Y many square miles of the city, that much needs to be calculated and resourced in advance. If I were a tax-paying city dweller whose house was on fire, I would be extremely irked to discover that the reason my house burned down was because the fire truck calculated to cover my area was outside of the city, attending a fire which was not resourced for. Fine, the city budget for next week is sorted because they get a load of money back in, and the out-of-town homeowner is penalised for his transgression, but that does not help the city-dweller who has been paying his taxes and fees.

NTM

Would you, in all good conscience, stand by and watch a house burn down if you had the means to prevent it?
I ask this of all the people supporting this action and not just you.

I ****ing hate people. I really do. I actually hate having to interact with people face-to-face. However, if I had a fire hose and saw a house burning to the ground, I'd use the fire hose to prevent that from happening.

Slipknot, as much as I hate those wannabe poor ****, had it right when they said "people = shít".

There's a lot of talk about scumbags in AH, but, and I mean this from the bottom of my cold icy heart (the bit with a slight bit of heat which has risen from my stomach), anyone with the means to prevent a house from burning down and ignoring it over $225 is a complete and utter scumbag.

MCMLXXXIII

Goodshape wrote: »

The firefighters didn't fail at being bureaucratic and might have been correct in business and legal terms but as human beings, they let a man's house burn down over $75. That's pretty low, mister.

Really can't believe how there wasn't simply a post-incident fine handed out.

The firefighters had already put a fire out at that same house for the same people before. Those same people still did not pay for the $75 fire protection.

The home owners had a choice (and, I would imagine, they have that same choice every year), and they chose not to buy the protection. There is not bureaucracy here - just physically violent people that regularly make bad decisions.

sock puppet wrote: »

They should just make everyone pay the fee to stop this happening.

That would be considered a tax. Any tax in the US makes you a <shock and horror> socialist! Plus, I don't think that one city (the one with the fire department) is able to tax another city (the one witout). Also, if you look at a map of South Fulton it shows that Fulton (just north of the city in question) is across state lines. So I also doubt that any city in Kentucky would be able to charge any tax to the city residents in Tennessee. Either way, that's how it works there, and the residents have a simple choice to make.

If the fire department keeps putting out fires for free, why would anyone continue to pay? By not distinguishing the fire, the department is protecting its value, and therefore protecting its viability as a service.

Manic Moran

Terry wrote: »

Would you, in all good conscience, stand by and watch a house burn down if you had the means to prevent it?
I ask this of all the people supporting this action and not just you.

If it's my job to do so, then yes. There are wider effects to be considered other than just this guy's house. If a precedent is started that the department's resources will be overstretched to anyone who calls regardless of their entitlements, then that can be detremental to everyone, such as the aforementioned city-dweller in my hypothetical. You can bet that everyone else outside the city who has been contemplating paying or not paying the annual $75 is suddenly re-evaluating their decision in light of this guy's misfortune.

Here's a real-world example of a similar situation. I'm driving in my tank up a road in Iraq, escorting a convoy. I've got plenty of rations in the bustle rack. A dishevilled and obviously undernourished ten-year-old is standing by the roadside, pleading for food or water. Do I throw her some food or no?

The compassionate, immediate answer is obvious. Of course I do.

It is also entirely the more dangerous course of action in the long term. It became a direct instruction to NOT dispense food/water as kids kept getting hit by trucks as they would run into the roadway to chase the Americans who kept throwing food out at them. Is it an easy decision? No, not when you're looking at the kid crying. Is it the correct decision? Yes. The situation is no different here. The correct decision need not be the short-term compassionate one.

NTM

Guy:Incognito

Herb Powell wrote: »

the fireman had the capability to save your man's house. the very least he could have done was to sort out the cost later.
but no, he had to be a dickhead

More likely outcome of them putting it out is he figures "meh, whats the chance of my house burning down twice" and still doesnt pay the fee.