Firefighters watch TN house burn to the ground; homeowner didn't pay $75 fee

[Knightskye]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

Uhh... one of the reasons I'm skeptical of privatizing fire departments. :confused:

[Dr.3D]

See what happens when you don't pay the extortion 'protection' fee?

[fletcher]

He chose not to pay for the service, so why should he expect to get it? He knew the risk and accepted it. I don't see the problem. But here is the difference between this and a private fire department:


The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late.

A private for-profit fire department would certainly accept money on the spot to put out a fire. It wouldn't be cheap, but they would gladly take the money.

If I could voluntarily pay money to a private fire department for their service I would love it. It isn't paying for a service that I am against, it is the force used to collect that money.

[brandon]

Sucks they had to learn the hard way.

[Dreamofunity]

I bet someone would offer to do it for $65, and allow someone to pay a late fee if they didn't want to pay before hand but needed it at the time of the event. The man offered to pay the $75+ whatever it would take to get them to do it, but they refused because of some bureaucratic policy and stubbornness.

Also, if there was competition, and the company decided not to put it out over the man not paying beforehand, and won't accept it at the time of (the man offered to pay any amount to get them to do it, they were just stubborn that he didn't pay before), the neighbors would change their contract to a different company with better PR. The story stated how pissed the neighbors were.

The main thing that matters in a market place is incentives, and there is no incentive to let something be destroyed, other than knowing you have a monopoly on the product and it doesn't matter what you do, people will still buy it.

[FrankRep]

It's a yearly $75 subscription fee. That's cheap.

[Dr.3D]

It's a yearly $75 subscription fee. That's cheap.

Yep, it's like low cost home owners insurance for fire protection.

[ord33]

Where I live in East TN there is a private corporation that handles the fire protection. We could pay several hundred dollars per year or in the event of a fire, they charge $1,200 per hour per apparatus for the call. We are "risking it" and not paying the yearly fee. The problem I have heard though is they favor the people who pay the yearly fee and may provide quicker/better responses to those people.

From their website.

How it works:

Rural/Metro Fire Department is a private company providing high-quaility, cost-effective fire service. Rather than paying taxes for fire services, you pay Rural/Metro an annual fee based on the total square footage of your home.

Non-members are billed for service at the rate of $1,200 per hour, per apparatus, for all fire calls. Homeowner's insurance might only cover a fraction of the bill, leaving the property owner responsible for the difference.


Rural/Metro Fire Membership Includes:


Fire response with no additional fees.*
First Responder medical service at no charge (excluding ambulance transport).
Applicable discounts on your homeowner's insurance premiums.
Free home fire and safety inspections, checks of your smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, and home escape plans that can save your family in the event of a fire.
Rural/Metro's life-saving fire prevention and safety programs at schools, churches, civic groups, neighborhood meetings or workplaces.

http://www.ruralmetrosouth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103&Itemid=147

Interesting concept really.

[Romulus]

Sorry.. but thats just heartless... yeah, he made a mistake.. I'm sure the firecheif that refused to put out his fire has made some too.

[Anti Federalist]

All fire departments used to work this way.

In fact, it was Ben Franklin's idea IIRC, that people would pay a yearly insurance payment and display a symbol on their home or office or warehouse that could be easily seen.

If you had one, your fire got put out.

If not, too bad, they'd show and keep other buildings from burning but you were SOL.

[angelatc]

I blogged about it here.

Firefighters used to be private. Buildings would display medallions indicating which department they had contracted with. If another crew showed up, they'd just watch the building burn.

Other cities tried letting the insurance companies pay "bounties" to the first crew to arrive. So the crews would send out runners to impede the competition by hiding the hydrants with barrels until their crews arrived.

[Anti Federalist]

And in rural areas it really pays to prevent rather than rely on firefighting after the fact.

In the winter where I live, 20-30 minutes of response time is reasonable.

Your home will burn to the ground in 15 minutes under the right conditions.

Stop it before it starts.

[Brian4Liberty]

See what happens when you don't pay the extortion 'protection' fee?

Yes, very similar to insurance. Obviously the annual "fee" does not cover the cost of fighting the fire. It's more of an insurance policy. It's worse than an insurance policy, as there is no competition that is willing to take cash. In the medical industry they will always take cash...at such exorbitant rates that the situation is almost the same as this story. "You need that surgery? It'll be $300,000..."

[Vessol]

The OP's conclusion is a bit off. This would not have happened if private fire departments existed there, they wouldn't hide behind bureaucratic nonsense like this.

[Imperial]

All fire departments used to work this way.

In fact, it was Ben Franklin's idea IIRC, that people would pay a yearly insurance payment and display a symbol on their home or office or warehouse that could be easily seen.

If you had one, your fire got put out.

If not, too bad, they'd show and keep other buildings from burning but you were SOL.

That seems to be asking for arsonists to target non-protected houses. It would be better if the company just has the house in its system.

[Vessol]

That seems to be asking for arsonists to target non-protected houses. It would be better if the company just has the house in its system.

Why would an arson care if a house was protected or not?

In both cases there is incentive to not commit arson due to the potential of being caught.

[Anti Federalist]

That seems to be asking for arsonists to target non-protected houses. It would be better if the company just has the house in its system.

Well, c'mon, I was describing how it worked 200 years ago.

Yes, if you were to do it now, hopefully you wouldn't have to display a placard.

I remember, years ago, the fire departments around the country instituted a program called "Tot Finder".

It was a large silver sticker of a fireman with a child in his arms, that you were supposed to stick on the window of your kid's bedroom, the idea being, upon arrival at a burning home, they would know which rooms were children's bedrooms, for a rapid response and rescue.

Turns out pedophiles and kidnappers made use of that information as well, and the program faded away.

[AuH20]

These goddamn vultures. Why do they continue with this nonsense? I'm tired of these lies. I'm also past the point of anger with this garbage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html


As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee.

Serve who? I want to rip my eyeballs out!!! We desire the government to not exploit others. It's FREAKING SIMPLE to understand!!!!! The government isn't one's personal plaything.

[Anti Federalist]

These goddamn vultures. Why do they continue with this nonsense? I'm tired of these lies. I'm also past the point of anger with this garbage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html



Serve who? I want to rip my eyeballs out!!! We desire the government to not exploit others. It's FREAKING SIMPLE to understand!!!!! The government isn't one's personal plaything.

Basically the "progressive" vision means I have a right to your nice home, cushy salary and top of the line health care.

[AuH20]

Basically the "progressive" vision means I have a right to your nice home, cushy salary and top of the line health care.

So you're basically saying some progressives are immature dolts, thinking they can just stumble into a comfortable quality of life, with little to no effort. Since the system is so woefully unfair, they propose another wrong or an increased burden on innocent parties, as opposed to actually attempting to rectify the main problem. It's called displacement layering and some liberals are notorious for it.

[Anti Federalist]

So you're basically saying some progressives are immature dolts, thinking they can just stumble into a comfortable quality of life, with little to no effort.

Worse than that, they are thieves, but cowards as well.

They get somebody else to stick the gun in your face.

If you got it, then they figure it's owed to them as well.

[AuH20]

Worse than that, they are thieves, but cowards as well.

They get somebody else to stick the gun in your face.

If you got it, then they figure it's owed to them as well.

I think you may be onto something. Wealth redistribution is completely non-personal, which is the way they like it. No guilt.

[Vessol]

I think you may be onto something. Wealth redistribution is completely non-personal, which is the way they like it. No guilt.

Of course, it is a very small minority of people who can actually muster the guts to use force to steal what others have. We call this the Enforcement class.

[Anti Federalist]

I think you may be onto something. Wealth redistribution is completely non-personal, which is the way they like it. No guilt.

No Guilt?

Hell, they've got themselves thinking it's a net social positive.

They are proud of themselves.

Just so long as they don't have to do the dirty work.

Not much different than the war party on the other side.

Really illustrates the duality of the system, of the welfare/warfare state.

[pcosmar]

This story sucks on so many levels.
And yes I have been a volunteer fireman.
The attitude of these folks makes me sick.

The attitude of the homeowner is not much better
:(

[squarepusher]

its really about a paycheck, not "helping people" as some may believe of firefighters are some type of humanitarian

[Vessol]

Really illustrates the duality of the system, of the welfare/warfare state.


http://www.annihilia.com/anifiles/welfarewarfaresm.jpg

[pcosmar]

I wonder if anyone has any accurate figures as to how many homes are ever actually saved by fire departments. In relation to how many they roll on. I have seen a lot of gutted buildings.

In my case, it would be a waste of time to make a call, time better spent on fighting the fire.
And pointless too. My home would be gone before they ever got to my driveway.

[Liberty_Mike]

If Fire Departments were privatized, there would be competing companies, so a home owner would have the option to call more than one department. The problem here is it is a state department, with no competition. Also, it is not for profit, so they did not care about the fact that the home owner would pay the fees to put the fire out. As someone else stated, a private company would definitely put the fire out for a price.
It makes me mad to think that one is forced to pay a $75 hedge to the city for the access to a fire department like this. What happens in this town if there is a forest fire? Will the local department just let it burn? Also, this seems like a hazard to neighbors and other people in the area for the state run department to just allow this fire to burn. If they have to pay an extra fee for fire protection, what the hell are their tax dollars funding?? This is a perfect example for the case for privatizing such things as local fire departments.

[Mach]

His whole house burned down huh? He'd better be careful, his homeowners insurance may hold him liable now and not pay for the whole thing.

The Mayor there probably gets kickbacks for giving the insurance companies the names of all of the citizens that do not give him a direct yearly payment.

[Humanae Libertas]

Not even one Firefighter took a stand and said "fuck it" and tried to put out the fire?

[squarepusher]

Not even one Firefighter took a stand and said "fuck it" and tried to put out the fire?

union wouldn't allow it ;p

[Kregisen]

He chose not to pay for the service, so why should he expect to get it? He knew the risk and accepted it. I don't see the problem. But here is the difference between this and a private fire department:



A private for-profit fire department would certainly accept money on the spot to put out a fire. It wouldn't be cheap, but they would gladly take the money.

If I could voluntarily pay money to a private fire department for their service I would love it. It isn't paying for a service that I am against, it is the force used to collect that money.

Fletcher nailed it. The homeowners are responsible.....they played the reverse the lottery and they hit the unlucky number. Their fault.

At the same time.....when they're there offering to pay WHATEVER price, every private company would put it out....only a government could fuck this situation up.

[JeremyDahl]

It is no ones responsibility to protect my property

[Vessol]

Not even one Firefighter took a stand and said "fuck it" and tried to put out the fire?

I doubt that he talked to anyone besides the dispatcher on the line. They decided to follow the bureaucratic line.

[squarepusher]

maybe firefighting services should be on a "pay per use" basis, like $3000 to put out a fire

[Kregisen]

maybe firefighting services should be on a "pay per use" basis, like $3000 to put out a fire

If it was privatized some company would accept payment both ways....on a case by case basis or the normal insurance rate, be it $75 or whatever.

The only drawback is when business is slow there will be great incentive for companies to start fires themselves in order to increase business. (however the incentive can be taken away if punishments for incidents like that were raised)

[squarepusher]

If it was privatized some company would accept payment both ways....on a case by case basis or the normal insurance rate, be it $75 or whatever.

The only drawback is when business is slow there will be great incentive for companies to start fires themselves in order to increase business. (however the incentive can be taken away if punishments for incidents like that were raised)

hehehe ;p

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The only drawback is when business is slow there will be great incentive for companies to start fires themselves in order to increase business. (however the incentive can be taken away if punishments for incidents like that were raised)

I wonder if people would label that false flag fires or fraudulent fires...

[tjeffersonsghost]

"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

Just doing their job, their not at fault. God that is eerie....

Don't do what is morally right, just do what you are told.

[fisharmor]

If it was privatized some company would accept payment both ways....on a case by case basis or the normal insurance rate, be it $75 or whatever.

The only drawback is when business is slow there will be great incentive for companies to start fires themselves in order to increase business. (however the incentive can be taken away if punishments for incidents like that were raised)

And that is why the case-by-case basis doesn't work, why I actually side with the fire department on this one, and why in a libertarian world I would refuse to do business with a case-by-case fire company.
If they accepted the homeowner's offer of whatever he had to pay, that becomes a totally different business model than the insurance model.

In the insurance model, the fire company doesn't want to put out fires. It's not in their interest to spend money on operational costs. It's much more in their interests to sit around the firehouse playing cards and collecting money for doing nothing. The best way not to put out fires is for there not to be any fires! In this scenario, both the firefighters and the homeowner want the firefighters not to have to do anything. So the firefighters would probably also come up with incentives for lower rates, like fire safety pointers and yearly inspections.

In the pay-per-event model, the fire company wants to put out fires, since it is only getting paid by the homeowner if his house is on fire. And the best way to have to put out fires? That's where you run into trouble with arson. The fire company also obviously has incentive not to give fire safety pointers, etc.


Other cities tried letting the insurance companies pay "bounties" to the first crew to arrive. So the crews would send out runners to impede the competition by hiding the hydrants with barrels until their crews arrived.

So the real question seems to be this: how do I get a fireplug on my private property? That's not an insignificant engineering problem....

[Elwar]

I used to have a private fire company.

When I moved in I got a piece of mail with their cost. Either $20 per month or $2,000 for a whole house fire (with varying fees for minor fires).

I chose to skip the fee. Figured the odds of my fire catching fire over the years was lower than the cost of the one time fee.

Though it was a government monopoly. There was no competition.

However my garbage service was private. There was a lot of competition and the service was perfect. I used to laugh at the county next door that had public garbage service and the news would do stories on how awful the garbage service was, with people complaining about the garbage truck not coming down their street or crappy service.

Competing fire services would probably be difficult since it's fairly rare in most communities for a house to catch fire. Having more than one fire department probably wouldn't be able to recover the costs.

[angelatc]

If Fire Departments were privatized, there would be competing companies, so a home owner would have the option to call more than one department.

Tried and failed. When they used to do it this way, the competition would do things like block traffic and conceal the hydrants in an attempt to drive the competition out of business.

[angelatc]

So the real question seems to be this: how do I get a fireplug on my private property? That's not an insignificant engineering problem....

Especially in the city. Townhouses and condominiums don't have yards.

A more viable solution is installing sprinklers. This house used to be owned by a fire chief, and he put sprinklers in.:)

[furface]

In fact, it was Ben Franklin's idea IIRC, that people would pay a yearly insurance payment and display a symbol on their home or office or warehouse that could be easily seen.

It's the way it should be. Insurance and fire protection should go hand in hand, and companies should compete for your business.

I'd rather have it that way than paying for 100k/year+ government fire fighters retiring on 100k/year pensions at age 50.

[KCIndy]

Well, if anyone's building a NEW house, apparently you can get a home fire sprinkler system installed for around $2.50/square foot:

http://www.doityourself.com/stry/firesprinklersystem


Too bad doing a retrofit is more expensive... but even so, it might be worth it if one is living in an area where the fire department is far away and/or ineffective.

[Pericles]

Tried and failed. When they used to do it this way, the competition would do things like block traffic and conceal the hydrants in an attempt to drive the competition out of business.

The fox seldom benefits from the competition between hounds.

[SamuraisWisdom]

The OP's conclusion is a bit off. This would not have happened if private fire departments existed there, they wouldn't hide behind bureaucratic nonsense like this.

Bureaucracy has nothing to do with it. Here's their reason:


South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

The fire department could have accepted whatever fee necessary to cover the cost of putting out the fire, but instead they decided to be stubborn and let the guy's house burn. This is why privatization of emergency public services can't work.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I blogged about it here.

Firefighters used to be private. Buildings would display medallions indicating which department they had contracted with. If another crew showed up, they'd just watch the building burn.

Other cities tried letting the insurance companies pay "bounties" to the first crew to arrive. So the crews would send out runners to impede the competition by hiding the hydrants with barrels until their crews arrived.

Yep that is exactly what they would do. Those medallions are highly valued collectors items now and can often bring into the tens of thousands.

In my childhood, our local volunteer fire department used something similar. When you made a donation to the FD than they would give you a sticker to put on the window of a child's bedroom so the department could go to that room first if possible. They would really lay on a guilt trip about not loving your kids if you did not make a donation. They would even come to school twice a year to tell kids that their parents might not care about their safety if they did not have one of these stickers.

[K466]

This was not a libertarian situation. It was a government run fire department (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978577549).

[denison]

The fire department could have accepted whatever fee necessary to cover the cost of putting out the fire, but instead they decided to be stubborn and let the guy's house burn. This is why privatization of emergency public services can't work.


i have to begrudgingly agree. fires need to be put out no matter the cost.

what if there were children inside, would be people still be applauding this?

[pcosmar]

This was not a libertarian situation. It was a government run fire department (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978577549).

I tried to point that out.
It was not a Business, and it had nothing to do with a free market.

But some don't like to let simple facts interfere with their favorite fantasies.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Tried and failed. When they used to do it this way, the competition would do things like block traffic and conceal the hydrants in an attempt to drive the competition out of business.

So instead of those bad actors getting sued out of business they became sanctioned monopolies.

[tropicangela]

YouTube - Firefighters Watch House Burn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2B2u8zjPU)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

youtube - firefighters watch house burn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw2b2u8zjpu)

roflol.... Same thing happened three years prior

[awake]

LOOK! see, SEE? The free market doesn't work.. this proves it! What a crock of horse Sh1T.

[tnvoter]

I'm from east TN, this is the kind of state where people all over stop to offer help if you have a flat tire; those firefighters will feel, and should feel guilty for not stepping in.

[pcosmar]

I'm from east TN, this is the kind of state where people all over stop to offer help if you have a flat tire; those firefighters will feel, and should feel guilty for not stepping in.
Not just in TN. I have been all over this country. Folks help folks.
That is why my initial reaction still stands.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Not just in TN. I have been all over this country. Folks help folks.
That is why my initial reaction still stands.

They seem like decent stand up people in the interviews. Mr. Cranik has stated he has to live with the consequences of forgetting to pay. Mrs. Cranik is not blaming the fire fighters. They have indicated insurance is picking up the tab (we know what company will be lobbying for mandatory fire protection in TN next year). They claim to have made a mistake not paying and that may very well be the case. Since you are strongly opinionated on this why not start a chipin or other form of charity whether it ends up large or small to help these folks out?

[ClayTrainor]

LOOK! see, SEE? The free market doesn't work.. this proves it! What a crock of horse Sh1T.

lol, typical. A Government program fails to help people, and the free market gets the blame.

[pcosmar]

Since you are strongly opinionated on this why not start a chipin or other form of charity whether it ends up large or small to help these folks out?

Yes I do have opinions. But it would be to remove this petty Bureaucrat from his position. Hopefully the local folks will do that at their earliest opportunity.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Has the D.A. file charges against the Firefighters for Pollution, open burn, and a slew of other unknown stupid laws?

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html)

Uhh... one of the reasons I'm skeptical of privatizing fire departments. :confused:

So, you want all the benefits of private property without taking responsibility for the risk? :eek::(

[GreenLP]

I've been thinking about this story a lot and the one thing I just can't comprehend is why didn't the homeowners' Insurance Company automatically include this cheap $75 yearly fire protection fee for their policy holder?

Would a bank give you an auto loan if you didn't have car insurance? Hell no. The banks would never take that risk.

Fees like this are too risky to chance to forgetfulness. Now the homeowners' Insurance Company has to fork out over $100,000 for the guy's house when they could have provided the convenience to the policy holder (and the security for the company!) to make sure this $75 fire service fee gets paid for him.

My only logical explanation is that Insurance Company doesn't insure a lot of homeowners who live in rural areas that have a yearly fee fire dept service and the company simple never thought to ask.

I'm confident this wouldn't happen if society was more Libertarian because fee-based fire protection would be more of the norm and all Insurance Companies would be aware of this.

[LadyBastiat]

All fire departments used to work this way.

In fact, it was Ben Franklin's idea IIRC, that people would pay a yearly insurance payment and display a symbol on their home or office or warehouse that could be easily seen.

If you had one, your fire got put out.

If not, too bad, they'd show and keep other buildings from burning but you were SOL.

Hmmm... I seem to remember having a fire helmet sticker in the window of one of the homes we lived in when I was a child. Would have been Ft. Walton Bch., FL around 1969-1975ish.

[pcosmar]

I've been thinking about this story a lot and the one thing I just can't comprehend is why didn't the homeowners' Insurance Company automatically include this cheap $75 yearly fire protection fee for their policy holder?

Would a bank give you an auto loan if you didn't have car insurance? Hell no. The banks would never take that risk.

Fees like this are too risky to chance to forgetfulness. Now the homeowners' Insurance Company has to fork out over $100,000 for the guy's house when they could have provided the convenience to the policy holder (and the security for the company!) to make sure this $75 fire service fee gets paid for him.

My only logical explanation is that Insurance Company doesn't insure a lot of homeowners who live in rural areas that have a yearly fee fire dept service and the company simple never thought to ask.

I'm confident this wouldn't happen if society was more Libertarian because fee-based fire protection would be more of the norm and all Insurance Companies would be aware of this.

No, Because if they had paid this Bureaucrats extortion, they would have still had to pay for the guys house. A waste of $75.
Fire dept shows up and sprays water, House is still a total loss.
Fire Departments are NOT insurance.

Now show me a Fire Dept that Will cover loss due to fire. Then a fee may be worth it.

[torchbearer]

I look at it like this-
the guy didn't pay for the service, which if its a yearly fee, its like a fireman's insurance. you are paying a premium to keep the fire department stocked and staffed.
this guy didn't pay into that premium, he instead bet that his house would not burn, and spent that money elsewhere.
when someone loses on their bet, it is not the duty of others to rescue him from that mistake, though people may choose to do so voluntarily.

[pcosmar]

I look at it like this-
the guy didn't pay for the service, which if its a yearly fee, its like a fireman's insurance. you are paying a premium to keep the fire department stocked and staffed.
this guy didn't pay into that premium, he instead bet that his house would not burn, and spent that money elsewhere.
when someone loses on their bet, it is not the duty of others to rescue him from that mistake, though people may choose to do so voluntarily.

Except that Taxes train and equip fire depts.
Even the Volunteers here get FEMA money and training.

This is a local bureaucrat's game. NOT a business. Not a private entity.

[RedStripe]

when someone loses on their bet, it is not the duty of others to rescue him from that mistake, though people may choose to do so voluntarily.

Right - I don't think anyone is arguing that a legal duty exists in this situation, for the same reason that you have no duty to remove a baby from a railroad track.

But society consists of a lot more than the written, formal law. And one of the strongest arguments for libertarianism is that the unwritten laws of social norms and morality can fill the gap left by formal law, and that most people are regulated primarily by their own internal conscious and the social communities to which they belong (including rules of enforcement, remedy, and procedure).

When we start using the formal law - that is, legally enforceable duties arising from contract or property rights (or lack thereof - as in this case) - as justification for violating well-established rules of good neighborliness, empathy for others, etc, it makes libertarians look pretty out of touch with the world. A fetish for the application of formal contract/property law and the system of incentives which, theoretically, may arise from them (but which don't actually bear themselves out, in many cases - http://www.amazon.com/Order-without-Law-Neighbors-Disputes/dp/0674641698 ) is a major problem with the modern libertarian movement.

Every circumstance is different, and certainly the social ramifications/duties won't be the same in situations that differ significantly with respect to important facts (such as the feasibility/cost associated with rendering assistance and the magnitude of the danger to be avoided, which are probably two of the most important considerations), but here I think it's pretty clear from the facts that the best thing for the fire dept to do would have been to put out the fire and then bill the man's insurance company afterward (under the theory of quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, if nothing else).

Think about it. Free market proponents claim that a free market maximizes wealth. Assuming the cost of putting out the fire would be less than the damage of the fire itself (which, if untrue, would severely diminish the prospects of fire protection in a free market where services are rendered almost entirely at arms length), to claim that this case is an example of the "free market in action" only provides more ammunition to those who believe that markets are inherently inefficient.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Assuming the cost of putting out the fire would be less than the damage of the fire itself (which, if untrue, would severely diminish the prospects of fire protection in a free market where services are rendered almost entirely at arms length), to claim that this case is an example of the "free market in action" only provides more ammunition to those who believe that markets are inherently inefficient.

It's no where near the free market in action. It's one town monopoly telling residents in another area you can pay us 75 bucks or vote and pay for your own fire protection by reminding them the town expects their cut for any services rendered.

[GreenLP]

No, Because if they had paid this Bureaucrats extortion, they would have still had to pay for the guys house. A waste of $75.
A measle $75 for a years-worth of fire services is extortion?!? I call it a bargain.


Fire dept shows up and sprays water, House is still a total loss.
Fire Departments are NOT insurance.

Now show me a Fire Dept that Will cover loss due to fire. Then a fee may be worth it.
So how will fire services work in a perfect LP system?

[GreenLP]

I look at it like this-
the guy didn't pay for the service, which if its a yearly fee, its like a fireman's insurance. you are paying a premium to keep the fire department stocked and staffed.
this guy didn't pay into that premium, he instead bet that his house would not burn, and spent that money elsewhere.
when someone loses on their bet, it is not the duty of others to rescue him from that mistake, though people may choose to do so voluntarily.
That's not true. They said they "forgot" to pay the fee and I have no reason to not believe them. They don't look stupid or cheap enough to not pay a measly $75 a year for fire services.

The point I was making in my post that "crucial" services, like fire protection, shouldn't be left to risk forgetfulness.

So why wouldn't the Insurance Company have made sure either he paid it, or they made sure they paid it for him? $75 vs $150,000. I'm pretty sure the Insurance Company can do the math.

[pcosmar]

A measle $75 for a years-worth of fire services is extortion?!? I call it a bargain.


So how will fire services work in a perfect LP system?

I don't think they will. I do not believe that a for profit fire dept could exist.

fight some fires, gain a perspective from reality.

I believe that fire departments should be much like the militia, or an extension of it.
People working together for the common defense. It should be volunteer as a service to and for the community.

Fire is a loss, often to the community. but always a loss.

[puppetmaster]

Does this person pay any property tax? If so then they should have been covered and if not then common decency from the so called "Hero" firefighters should have been enough to put out the fire....

[GreenLP]

I don't think they will. I do not believe that a for profit fire dept could exist.

fight some fires, gain a perspective from reality.

I believe that fire departments should be much like the militia, or an extension of it.
People working together for the common defense. It should be volunteer as a service to and for the community.

Fire is a loss, often to the community. but always a loss.
Well if that's the case, I'm definitely not voting Libertarian on the local level.

[pcosmar]

Well if that's the case, I'm definitely not voting Libertarian on the local level.

What do you think fire departments do? What is their operating cost compared to compared to actual property saved? Is there room for a profit margin?
What is the rate of success in saving property?

Does the insurance police pay off regardless? If you have no insurance and the fire department comes, do they make repairs or pay for damage?

Please think about this from a position of reality and not fantasy.

[GreenLP]

Does this person pay any property tax? If so then they should have been covered and if not then common decency from the so called "Hero" firefighters should have been enough to put out the fire....
I think he did, but the town he lived in that he payed his taxes too was the one who didn't have a fire dept.

I'm appalled that they fire dept didn't help him out, especially when he offered to pay the fee when he found out he forgot to pay it, plus offering to pay all the expensive of the fire dept trying to put out his house fire. I really doubt a privately ran fire dept would have refused.

[pcosmar]

I think he did, but the town he lived in that he payed his taxes too was the one who didn't have a fire dept.

I'm appalled that they fire dept didn't help him out, especially when he offered to pay the fee when he found out he forgot to pay it, plus offering to pay all the expensive of the fire dept trying to put out his house fire. I really doubt a privately ran fire dept would have refused.

He payed tax. The fire dept was funded by tax.
It is a small border town. and he is a rural resident near but outside of the city limits.
the fee was set up by the city bureaucrats (tax feeders). Most likely to supplement their income.
It did not and could not possibly fund the fire services.

If there were 100 rural residents around this small town,, at $75 each it would not pay one mans salary.

This was a left wing hit piece with little basis in facts.

[RedStripe]

It's no where near the free market in action. It's one town monopoly telling residents in another area you can pay us 75 bucks or vote and pay for your own fire protection by reminding them the town expects their cut for any services rendered.

Right, but supposing that this sort of situation should or might occur in the "the free market" such a potential criticism stands.

[qh4dotcom]

i have to begrudgingly agree. fires need to be put out no matter the cost.

what if there were children inside, would be people still be applauding this?

There were pets inside...those should have been at least rescued from the fire...not doing so is equivalent to animal cruelty.

[GreenLP]

What do you think fire departments do? What is their operating cost compared to compared to actual property saved? Is there room for a profit margin?
What is the rate of success in saving property?

Does the insurance police pay off regardless? If you have no insurance and the fire department comes, do they make repairs or pay for damage?
I've always lived in areas that had a public fire dept and never saw, or heard any problems with them. I don't have any problem with that city offering bordering rural town to opt in for a measly $75 other than them not putting out the guy's fire after he offered to pay the fee + the cost of putting out the fire and wondering why his insurance company didn't make sure he paid the fee, paid it for him, or have him sign a waiver before they insured his house.


Please think about this from a position of reality and not fantasy.
Insults won't win you converts.