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

BluePlanet · 07-10-2010 04:57PM #1

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 · 07-10-2010 05:00PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:02PM

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

Cool Mo D · 07-10-2010 05:06PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:07PM

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

07-10-2010 05:25PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:27PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:28PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:31PM

Should have paid in the first place.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 07-10-2010 05:31PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:38PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:39PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:45PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:47PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:48PM

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 · 07-10-2010 05:49PM

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 ?

07-10-2010 05:59PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:01PM

Well, thats Capitalism in action for you

.

Ruu_Old · 07-10-2010 06:03PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:06PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:10PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:12PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:14PM

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

Rented Mule · 07-10-2010 06:21PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:27PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:34PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:38PM

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 · 07-10-2010 06:53PM

False economy.

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

Rented Mule · 07-10-2010 07:06PM

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 · 07-10-2010 07:10PM

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

sock puppet · 07-10-2010 07:10PM

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

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

Comments