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

Rented Mule · 07-10-2010 07:16PM

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 · 07-10-2010 07:26PM

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

Manic Moran · 07-10-2010 07:28PM

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 · 07-10-2010 07:29PM

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_ · 07-10-2010 07:29PM

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 · 07-10-2010 07:34PM

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 · 07-10-2010 07:40PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:02PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:04PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:08PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:09PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:15PM

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

Rented Mule · 07-10-2010 08:18PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:22PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:22PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:22PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:29PM

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 · 07-10-2010 08:43PM

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 · 07-10-2010 09:04PM

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 · 07-10-2010 09:20PM

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.

Mrmoe · 07-10-2010 09:28PM

Terry wrote: »

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.

This is necessary for the safety of the wider community. As other people have said a precedent would be set which would lead to the demise of services of the whole community. There has to be consequences to our actions. It would be same way with medical treatment. Would you prioritise a smoker to get a new pair of lungs or another person who never smoked? People need to take more responsibility for their own lives. The home owner took a course of action armed with the knowledge that if his house caught fire that the fire brigade would have no obligation to help him.

I do not think it is the best system to have but once it is in place they have to live by it.

BluePlanet · 07-10-2010 09:34PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

This is necessary for the safety of the wider community. As other people have said a precedent would be set which would lead to the demise of services of the whole community.

Yeah because there is no other way to receive payment like um, a court of law?
To extend that logic, if somone hadn't purchased Health Insurance, then they should bleed to death at the doorsteps of the hospital.

Back to the original story, apparently 3 dogs and 1 cat burned to death in the blaze.
Still proud of those brave firefighters?

Amhran Nua · 07-10-2010 09:43PM

Precedent my bum. Hit him with a $750 uninsured call out charge after you save his house and let word of that spread around. This is like something out of a third world country, like the Philippines, where people are locked into the hospitals after treatment until their families can afford to pay for it. And they get charged for the time they are locked in, too.

Mrmoe · 07-10-2010 09:44PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yeah because there is no other way to receive payment like um, a court of law?
To extend that logic, if somone hadn't purchased Health Insurance, then they should bleed to death at the doorsteps of the hospital.
Back to the original story, apparently 3 dogs and 1 cat burned to death in the blaze.
Still proud of those brave firefighters?

You wouldn't bleed to death because that would be classed as a medical emergency. What would happen if say I ran a delivery company. I have the option of paying insurance that would cover the cost of repairing my delivery van if it ever broke down. This would be a sensible and logical thing to do. However, if I said screw that I am not paying insurance , 6 months later the engine blows and I can't afford to pay to replace or fix it. Whose fault is that? Should the mechanic fix it for free or should the car salesman give me a new van?

There is always a time where we have to accept responsibility for our own actions.

Celly Smunt · 07-10-2010 09:45PM

orourkeda wrote: »

I just hope they had house insurance

if they have the insurance they won't get paid,it's america,also its probably in the policy that you must pay the contribution to the fire service to claim

Herb Powell · 07-10-2010 09:55PM

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.

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.

I love you
well , I mean I agree with you completely :pac:

Stekelly wrote: »

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.

so? I meant the fire department get the money that they were owed afterwards. it was his choice in the first place right? according to your side of the debate anyway. Ye can't really say ye support both.

Guy:Incognito · 07-10-2010 10:03PM

Herb Powell wrote: »

so? I meant the fire department get the money that they were owed afterwards. .

From where?

If one person doesnt pay but gets a service anyway, wheres the incentinve for anyone to pay? Pretty soon the fire service has no money.

karma_ · 07-10-2010 10:03PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

Where have we heard that before?

utter fcukin tripe! And not only that, your whole long-winded analogy there have fcuk all to do with standing by and letting a man's house burn down. Wasting resources, sure they could have broken out the marshmallows.

Amhran Nua · 07-10-2010 10:05PM

Stekelly wrote: »

From where?

The guy who just saved the cost of rebuilding his house. How hard is it to ask people to agree to pay a higher callout charge when they phone in from an unregistered address?

Guy:Incognito · 07-10-2010 10:07PM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The guy who just saved the cost of rebuilding his house. How hard is it to ask people to agree to pay a higher callout charge when they phone in from an unregistered address?

Again, he figures his house wont burn down a 2nd time so continues not paying.

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

Comments