Video: Firefighters let home burn to ground because owner didn’t pay annual $75 fee

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248649/pay-spray-firefighters-watch-home-burns-daniel-foster

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/04/video-firefighters-let-home-burn-to-the-ground-because-owner-didnt-pay-annual-75-fee/


Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck…

“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick.

Because of that, not much is left of Cranick’s house…

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house…

It was only when a neighbor’s field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn’t.

[BrendenR]

What if there had been someone trapped in the home?

[pcosmar]

What guarantee is given or promised with this "Fee"?

Do they offer protection?

or only promise to show up and go through some motions while your house is destroyed by fire.

How many homes are actually saved?

You are far better off to buy fire insurance and practice fire safety.
Relying on a "fire Department" will leave you with a charred gutted home (at best) or a pile of wet ash. Possibly with a bill for services.


The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house…
Story is vague on this, Just how and where did this fire start?

[Icymudpuppy]

No pity for the man. He didn't opt in to the optional service, and so he wasn't serviced. As a volunteer firefighter for a local district that used to have such optional policies, but doesn't any longer, fire is one thing that is preventable, and costs a lot to fight. There is a lot of risk, and his lack of participation and planning does not an emergency make for me.

Human safety and medical response have always been work first ask questions later. If there was someone inside, they probably would have attempted rescue and still let the place burn.

Sometimes for fire-fighter safety, places are allowed to burn anyway, and the only firefighting is to keep things from spreading even in our current property tax based service. This is especially true on mobile homes where there is a lot of toxic smoke, and very old homes with questionable structural integrity, or homes with no solid foundation but only supported by wood posts or poorly made crumbling masonry.

It is a good idea to have fire insurance on your home so you can get full reimbursement of the value of your lost property.

[Acala]

No pity for the man. He didn't opt in to the optional service, and so he wasn't serviced. As a volunteer firefighter for a local district that used to have such optional policies, but doesn't any longer, fire is one thing that is preventable, and costs a lot to fight. There is a lot of risk, and his lack of participation and planning does not an emergency make for me.

Human safety and medical response have always been work first ask questions later. If there was someone inside, they probably would have attempted rescue and still let the place burn.

Sometimes for fire-fighter safety, places are allowed to burn anyway, and the only firefighting is to keep things from spreading even in our current property tax based service. This is especially true on mobile homes where there is a lot of toxic smoke, and very old homes with questionable structural integrity, or homes with no solid foundation but only supported by wood posts or poorly made crumbling masonry.

It is a good idea to have fire insurance on your home so you can get full reimbursement of the value of your lost property.


^this

If you choose not to buy the insurance, you are gambling. This guy lost his gamble. Tough luck. You don't get to buy the protection AFTER the accident happens.

[RedStripe]

What would Jesus do?

"Heh, fuck you losers who lost on your gamble" *smokes cigarette*

This is why libertarians are perceived as completely out of touch with reality. In reality, it's just absolutely shitty and pathetic to do NOTHING to help your neighbor - yes, the real world of actual relationships with you community; a world that I sometimes question whether or not some of you actually live in.

[Icymudpuppy]

What would Jesus do?

"Heh, fuck you losers who lost on your gamble" *smokes cigarette*


I don't think so. I think Jesus would say something like this...


"My Child, this is a sign from God that it is time to eschew your material wealth and physical home and commit yourself to the house of God."

[pcosmar]

^this

If you choose not to buy the insurance, you are gambling. This guy lost his gamble. Tough luck. You don't get to buy the protection AFTER the accident happens.

The guy has insurance, and they will pay for the house.

The lack of basic human decency on the part of those involved is disgusting.

[erowe1]

What would Jesus do?

"Heh, fuck you losers who lost on your gamble" *smokes cigarette*

This is why libertarians are perceived as completely out of touch with reality. In reality, it's just absolutely shitty and pathetic to do NOTHING to help your neighbor - yes, the real world of actual relationships with you community; a world that I sometimes question whether or not some of you actually live in.

I take it, then, that you make it your habit to offer voluntarily to pay the cost of fire fighters putting out the fires of those who didn't purchase their services. How's that working out for you?

[Philhelm]

So, what exactly are his taxes paying for then? Rhetorical question, but one of the pro-tax arguments I always hear is about how it's necessary to pay for schools, roads, police...fire departments.

[erowe1]

So, what exactly are his taxes paying for then? Rhetorical question, but one of the pro-tax arguments I always hear is about how it's necessary to pay for schools, roads, police...fire departments.

There are different types of taxes, and different states and municipalities rely on different types differently. Some, wisely, rely more on user fees like this. Generally, roads are paid for by special taxes levied on those who use them as well, including gas taxes, vehicle registrations, and tolls.

[MRoCkEd]

Privatize the fire department!

[RM918]

Should've put out the fire and billed him afterward.

[Philhelm]

There are different types of taxes, and different states and municipalities rely on different types differently. Some, wisely, rely more on user fees like this. Generally, roads are paid for by special taxes levied on those who use them as well, including gas taxes, vehicle registrations, and tolls.

Of course, but most people don't make those distinctions, yet claim that all of our taxes support the general welfare.

[erowe1]

Should've put out the fire and billed him afterward.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. They should be able to get his verbal consent and have it enforced as a valid contract. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised to see courts rule that he still wouldn't be obligated to pay because it would have been agreed to under duress.

[Acala]

This is why libertarians are perceived as completely out of touch with reality. In reality, it's just absolutely shitty and pathetic to do NOTHING to help your neighbor - yes, the real world of actual relationships with you community; a world that I sometimes question whether or not some of you actually live in.

Subscription fire protection service is like insurance. If you don't buy the insurance, you don't get the service. Now if YOU want to donate to a charity that specializes in paying the bills of people who gamble with fate and lose, go for it. But expecting a business that operates on subscriptions to offer the service whether you paid the subscription or not is just ignorant.

[Acala]

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. They should be able to get his verbal consent and have it enforced as a valid contract. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised to see courts rule that he still wouldn't be obligated to pay because it would have been agreed to under duress.

It would likely be unenforceable as a practical matter. You send him the bill and he says go screw yourself. He already got the service. You can't repo the product. What are you going to do? Garnish his wages? Good luck. A business model that depends on suing people is going to fail.

[Acala]

The lack of basic human decency on the part of those involved is disgusting.

So, your proposal is that the fire service that operates on a subscription basis should put fires out for people who deliberately choose NOT to buy the subscription to the service?

Under your plan, where my fire gets extinguished whether or not I pay for the service, where is the motivation to pay for the service? If I am the prudent guy who does pay for the service, what is my reaction going to be when I see the service I pay for being given to the guy down the street for free? Your emotionally-driven view creates incentives to not subscribe and disincentives to subscribe. Your model is an economic failure.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What would Jesus do?

"Heh, fuck you losers who lost on your gamble" *smokes cigarette*

This is why libertarians are perceived as completely out of touch with reality. In reality, it's just absolutely shitty and pathetic to do NOTHING to help your neighbor - yes, the real world of actual relationships with you community; a world that I sometimes question whether or not some of you actually live in.

TANSTAAFL

Nothing in this world is free. If you choose not to pay, then you receive no service. How hard is this to comprehend? It is not like it was some absurd amount like 10,000$ a year, it was 75$! People are not altruistic. We are self-interested beings.

People pay much more than 75$ a year in taxes for fire departments, but yet have no problem. This is what the State does to society. It makes people complacent, reduces intelligence, and creates vast moral hazards. God forbid people have to make decisions themselves.

My questions about this is....is this a State-chartered enterprise, or can anyone start a fire company in this city? What regulations accompany such enterprises?

[erowe1]

It would likely be unenforceable as a practical matter. You send him the bill and he says go screw yourself. He already got the service. You can't repo the product. What are you going to do? Garnish his wages? Good luck. A business model that depends on suing people is going to fail.

I think it could be theoretically enforceable by allowing them to repossess the house they saved. But again, the problem would come up in courts allowing that contract to hold.

[Romulus]

The guy has insurance, and they will pay for the house.

The lack of basic human decency on the part of those involved is disgusting.

Well, unless the ins co cites him as negligent since he didn't opt in for fire coverage.. Not saying that should happen, but it would not surprise me.

And I agree about human decency. It used to be strangers helped strangers.. now everyone is just out for themselves.

[pcosmar]

So, your proposal is that the fire service that operates on a subscription basis should put fires out for people who deliberately choose NOT to buy the subscription to the service?


NO, and I never said that. And those that think this fire dept. operated on a subscription are deluded. ($75 would not cover wages, let alone equipment,fuel and overhead). There is scam going on, but folks here would rather argue over a non-existent market based service.

I was disgusted at people refusing to give assistance to someone in need of assistance, and at the same time wasting effort on nothing (a grass fire that was already under control.)

[Acala]

I think it could be theoretically enforceable by allowing them to repossess the house they saved. But again, the problem would come up in courts allowing that contract to hold.

Most residential houses have a bank lien that would be primary to any claim by the fire company.

[Acala]

I was disgusted at people refusing to give assistance to someone in need of assistance, and at the same time wasting effort on nothing (a grass fire that was already under control.)


Exactly. You think people should render a service to this guy when he knowingly refused to pay for the service. Should they ALWAYS do that or just when the guy who lost his bet is a particularly good whiner? As a subscriber should I be willing to pay more to have the company provide the service for free to people who choose not to pay?

[lester1/2jr]

they have to come up with a better system. I saw the guy on Olberman last night. he said he just forgot to pay it.

At the same time, if the fire dept let this guy pay only when his huse catches on fire how would they stay in business?

[pcosmar]

they have to come up with a better system. I saw the guy on Olberman last night. he said he just forgot to pay it.

At the same time, if the fire dept let this guy pay only when his huse catches on fire how would they stay in business?

THEY AREN'T A FRIGGIN' BUSINESS.
They are a public service paid for with tax. They are in fact funded by Tax Dolars.

Forget the pie in the sky fantasy's of what could maybe ,might be someday.
This is a tax funded service. Today.

[Koz]

Should've put out the fire and billed him afterward.

I concur. I mean he said he would pay whatever they wanted. If I were the chief I would have said well it's probably going to be around $30k when it's all said and done (or whatever the cost is) and gotten a verbal confirmation and maybe some written documentation.

Although I don't wish ill on anyone this is a good lesson that you are responsible for yourself no matter who you put your trust in. He didn't pay the fee so no service. Tough decision to make, but a costly one. Realistically most of his property would have been destroyed anyway. Water damage is almost as bad as fire damage.

[phill4paul]

they have to come up with a better system. I saw the guy on Olberman last night. he said he just forgot to pay it.

At the same time, if the fire dept let this guy pay only when his huse catches on fire how would they stay in business?

THEY AREN'T A FRIGGIN' BUSINESS.
They are a public service paid for with tax. They are in fact funded by Tax Dolars.

Forget the pie in the sky fantasy's of what could maybe ,might be someday.
This is a tax funded service. Today.

Peter, just from the article it seems that the department was a city tax paid organization and that rural residents that did not lie within the city had to pay the additional service fee.
So it would seem that the "public service" is paid for by the city citizens taxes and the "private service" is paid for by the rural citizens, through a fee, that do not pay city taxes.
At least that was my take on it.
I gave it just a couple of minutes to find out what and if any fees are paid to the city by rural residents but was unable to find specifics.
I personally have no problem with their lack of reaction if these people paid no fees. That is, in the end, how the system works. And is is by his choice to have not paid into the system.
Though I live within city limits and pay city taxes I do not have city water or sewer. If I had a choice I would opt out of police "protection."
The individual may have simply decided to opt out and then changed his mind when a fire broke out.
Again I have no problem with their reaction.
I would have acted differently if I were the on scene commander. Though I would not have put any firefighter in jeopardy I would have at least decided that it was probably a good time for some "training exercises."
However, you do bring up a good point. Though this individual does not pay a city tax for the service has this department ever received any national funds for equipment?

[RedStripe]

The condescending tone in this thread towards the homeowner and the "fuck you, got mine" attitude is the exact sort of behavior which causes most human beings who live in the real world to regard 'libertarians' as anti-social sperglords whose theoretical fantasy world bears no relation to actual society. I mean, after all, before one can properly include various social norms and the nuances of community relations into one's philosophy, one actually has to reasonably aware of such concepts rather than a reclusive shut-in or immature privileged, teenager living in the suburbs.

If human interactions, in your view, boils down to legal rights created through contract and "natural law" you're an ignorant fool. The vast majority of all human relationships and actions have absolutely nothing to do with legal "rights" or "duties" that we may have to one another.

The instant case is a perfect example. No one is arguing that the firefighters had a legal obligation to put out the fire. Yet that seems to be the strawman that many people in this thread are arguing against. Or, worse yet, they cannot even conceive of a discussion that doesn't have anything to do with legal rights or duties, but rather centers around common conceptions of decency and justice.

Vulgar libertarians, do not fear. No one is threatening to take away your "sacred" right to stand and watch a baby being run over by a train if you just don't feel like saving it (the baby never paid it's $75 run-over-by-a-train insurance). But we are calling you a fucking asshole and worthless degenerate who should be disrespected and rejected by society if that's what you choose to do.

And in this case, the firefighting organization which chose to sit idly by as someone's livelihood was obliterated is a sick and disgusting one which deserves all the nasty treatment and derision they are receiving.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The condescending tone in this thread towards the homeowner and the "fuck you, got mine" attitude is the exact sort of behavior which causes most human beings who live in the real world to regard 'libertarians' as anti-social sperglords whose theoretical fantasy world bears no relation to actual society. I mean, after all, before one can properly include various social norms and the nuances of community relations into one's philosophy, one actually has to reasonably aware of such concepts rather than a reclusive shut-in or immature privileged, teenager living in the suburbs.

If human interactions, in your view, boils down to legal rights created through contract and "natural law" you're an ignorant fool. The vast majority of all human relationships and actions have absolutely nothing to do with legal "rights" or "duties" that we may have to one another.

The instant case is a perfect example. No one is arguing that the firefighters had a legal obligation to put out the fire. Yet that seems to be the strawman that many people in this thread are arguing against. Or, worse yet, they cannot even conceive of a discussion that doesn't have anything to do with legal rights or duties, but rather centers around common conceptions of decency and justice.

Vulgar libertarians, do not fear. No one is threatening to take away your "sacred" right to stand and watch a baby being run over by a train if you just don't feel like saving it (the baby never paid it's $75 run-over-by-a-train insurance). But we are calling you a fucking asshole and worthless degenerate who should be disrespected and rejected by society if that's what you choose to do.

And in this case, the firefighting organization which chose to sit idly by as someone's livelihood was obliterated is a sick and disgusting one which deserves all the nasty treatment and derision they are receiving.

And once people find out you don't have to pay in order to receive services from said persons, what will most people do? Not pay, and therefore, no service will be provided because of your "personal obligation" to put out any fire, any where, for any body free of charge. Humans are not saints. We do things out of incentive and self-interest. The world you envision is a world which is contrary to human sociology. Would it have been nice? Sure would have. No one is disputing that. What I am disputing is the after-effects of such policy.

Would you pay for a service you know you will get even if you do not pay? People don't become firefighters because of some altruistic "love thy neighbor" bullcrap. They do it because they get paid. Firefighters, too, like anyone else have to make a living.

My question though, bypassing the silly emotional fuck the after-effects and human sociology is if in fact this firefighting service received public funds, and moreover, if they are directly chartered by the State and if they are in fact a privileged monopoly. Those are the pertinent questions. Not if one should have some sort of societal obligation to do things for free.

Then again, if you want to raise up strawmen yourself, as if no one would help the baby because we didn't get paid, be my guest, but that my friend has no bearing whatsoever on what actually happened. No one is in the business of saving babies from trains. That obviously is one in which good-samaritans would step in and help due to the rarity and time elapsed in such a scenario. However, firefighting is a business. One just taken over by the State. The State has an obligation to help those in need of fire services, because they force us to pay for it. A service I might add which costs hell of a lot more than 75$ a year in the hands of the State!

[erowe1]

And in this case, the firefighting organization which chose to sit idly by as someone's livelihood was obliterated is a sick and disgusting one which deserves all the nasty treatment and derision they are receiving.

How much did you offer to pay them to help?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

TANSTAAFL

Repeat ad nauseum. Everything we do has a cost.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let me put this into terms RedStripe will understand...

I support Mutual Aid societies, and other fraternities of that ilk. Imagine if someone lost their job, and came to the Society for assistance without putting in any time, money, or other contribution. Would RedStripe decry the Mutual Aid society for not giving this man their hard-earned money? The Society would of course not give any money to this man. He has not presented any mutual contribution, and thus, does not qualify for any assistance. Can members on their own time contribute and help if they want to? Sure.

Some mutualist RedStripe is... (I am not even one, but I support some of the same things they do -- Like Mutual Aid Societies & Fraternities)

[RedStripe]

And once people find out you don't have to pay in order to receive services from said persons, what will most people do? Not pay, and therefore, no service will be provided because of your "personal obligation" to put out any fire, any where, for any body free of charge. Humans are not saints. We do things out of incentive and self-interest. The world you envision is a world which is contrary to human sociology. Would it have been nice? Sure would have. No one is disputing that. What I am disputing is the after-effects of such policy.

Hahah, you have such an elementary understanding of human reciprocity, social duties, social norms, etc.

I guarantee you that if the firefighters had put this family's fire out, not only would people continue to pay - more people would pay. People like to be a part of and contribute to something good, and an organization that makes an effort of living up to the moral expectations of the community is serves and the community that sustains it will be better supported. I don't expect you to really understand why that is, again, because you simply don't understand how human beings actually interact.

The fact that you would even bring up sociology is laughable considering your completely erroneous view of human beings as accounting robots who will jump on any "free-rider" opportunity the second they calculate they will save a single dollar by doing so. You clearly don't understand why anyone would continue to pay the $75 fee because you don't understand how people make value judgments. You jump to the extreme conclusion that a fire department which shows some humanity by helping out someone who, by all accounts, simply "forgot to pay" has nothing to do with some insane "social obligation" to put out "all fires" for free - this is just a ridiculous strawman, as no one is actually suggesting that.

I'm sure you don't realize that it's a strawman simply because you cannot differentiate why most people view the fire department as having a social/moral obligation in this scenario and not the outlandish ones you suggest. You have a fundamental deficiency in your understanding how how human empathy and social norms interact. No one expects me to wander the train tracks day and night looking for babies to save from being run over. But I am expected to save a child when it is in danger and I could easily and directly do so. Do you grasp that, at all?

Of course, this leads to a spectrum of social expectations. Uh-oh! There's a lot of gray area in there! Lots of "thin" libertarians don't like that. They like to focus on simple, easy questions such as "is the state involved? If so I can just pin blame on the state and I can avoid any tough questions that don't have easy, cookie-cutter answers that fit into my preferred political ideology."

You sound like you are describing yourself when you essentially say that all humans are selfish assholes, but that's objectively false for most people. I'm not arguing that it's the "nature" of man to be altruistic (although there's a good argument for that, seeing as how altruism dominated human society for hundreds of thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution), but it's an objective fact that people generally are.



Would you pay for a service you know you will get even if you do not pay?

Notice the complete lack of factual context for this question. To the thin libertarian, everything is boiled down to black and white abstract principles (and to get there, you have to cut out all that, tough, messy stuff like history, social relationships, family obligations, etc).

My answer is, yes - sometimes. But the fact is, when I do so, I'm not really paying for the service so much as I am paying for something else, or doing so for some other motivation (which likely plays no role in your watered-down world-view).



People don't become firefighters because of some altruistic "love thy neighbor" bullcrap. They do it because they get paid.

Do I need any more evidence that you are disconnected from reality? Firefighters choose to become firefighters for a lot more reasons than a paycheck. Wow I really cannot believe how unaware you are of how the world actually operates.



My question though, bypassing the silly emotional fuck the after-effects and human sociology is if in fact this firefighting service received public funds, and moreover, if they are directly chartered by the State and if they are in fact a privileged monopoly. Those are the pertinent questions. Not if one should have some sort of societal obligation to do things for free.

Exactly what I was describing above. You don't want to deal with social obligations because it's too complex, it's not easy to have definite answers all the time, and the thin libertarian ideology has nothing to say about it. Oh, and it doesn't advance your political agenda.

Do you think a man standing next to the train track should, as a matter of either social or moral obligation, pick up a baby who is in the track and remove it to safety, if doing so posses no real risk or cost upon the man?

[RedStripe]

How much did you offer to pay them to help?

Who are you talking about?

[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, they're not at fault. God that is eerie.... almost 1930s Germany.

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

No doubt the guy should of paid the $75 in the beginning but is this what America has come to? Let a guys life go into flames over $75? Years of pictures and other sentimental things just because he didnt fork over the protection fee?

I agree with Red Stripe, this is exactly why Libertarians are looked at as wacky in the main stream. Theory is all fine and dandy, that is until you are affected by it. Sell out your fellow American over $75. Anyone who thinks that is justifiable is just heartless.

[smokemonsc]

Redstripe and those that are sympathetic to his POV, would you have forced the firefighters to help that guy even though the guy didn't pay for their services?

It's easy for you to say you would've helped, etc because you weren't there. And I don't see you starting a charity drive to help him out. That my friends, would make you a hypocrite or a liar.

[Carole]

Gosh, this pay or else scheme sounds like a mob protection fee racket.

All they had to do was put the fire out and bill him for the $75 dollar fee.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hahah, you have such an elementary understanding of human reciprocity, social duties, social norms, etc.

I guarantee you that if the firefighters had put this family's fire out, not only would people continue to pay - more people would pay. People like to be a part of and contribute to something good, and an organization that makes an effort of living up to the moral expectations of the community is serves and the community that sustains it will be better supported. I don't expect you to really understand why that is, again, because you simply don't understand how human beings actually interact.

The fact that you would even bring up sociology is laughable considering your completely erroneous view of human beings as accounting robots who will jump on any "free-rider" opportunity the second they calculate they will save a single dollar by doing so. You clearly don't understand why anyone would continue to pay the $75 fee because you don't understand how people make value judgments. You jump to the extreme conclusion that a fire department which shows some humanity by helping out someone who, by all accounts, simply "forgot to pay" has nothing to do with some insane "social obligation" to put out "all fires" for free - this is just a ridiculous strawman, as no one is actually suggesting that.

I'm sure you don't realize that it's a strawman simply because you cannot differentiate why most people view the fire department as having a social/moral obligation in this scenario and not the outlandish ones you suggest. You have a fundamental deficiency in your understanding how how human empathy and social norms interact. No one expects me to wander the train tracks day and night looking for babies to save from being run over. But I am expected to save a child when it is in danger and I could easily and directly do so. Do you grasp that, at all?

Of course, this leads to a spectrum of social expectations. Uh-oh! There's a lot of gray area in there! Lots of "thin" libertarians don't like that. They like to focus on simple, easy questions such as "is the state involved? If so I can just pin blame on the state and I can avoid any tough questions that don't have easy, cookie-cutter answers that fit into my preferred political ideology."

You sound like you are describing yourself when you essentially say that all humans are selfish assholes, but that's objectively false for most people. I'm not arguing that it's the "nature" of man to be altruistic (although there's a good argument for that, seeing as how altruism dominated human society for hundreds of thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution), but it's an objective fact that people generally are.



Notice the complete lack of factual context for this question. To the thin libertarian, everything is boiled down to black and white abstract principles (and to get there, you have to cut out all that, tough, messy stuff like history, social relationships, family obligations, etc).

My answer is, yes - sometimes. But the fact is, when I do so, I'm not really paying for the service so much as I am paying for something else, or doing so for some other motivation (which likely plays no role in your watered-down world-view).



Do I need any more evidence that you are disconnected from reality? Firefighters choose to become firefighters for a lot more reasons than a paycheck. Wow I really cannot believe how unaware you are of how the world actually operates.



Exactly what I was describing above. You don't want to deal with social obligations because it's too complex, it's not easy to have definite answers all the time, and the thin libertarian ideology has nothing to say about it. Oh, and it doesn't advance your political agenda.

Do you think a man standing next to the train track should, as a matter of either social or moral obligation, pick up a baby who is in the track and remove it to safety, if doing so posses no real risk or cost upon the man?

Selfishness and Self-interest are two completely different things. I understand why people do things that seemingly seem altruistic, but aren't when viewed through the obvious. It is not out of altruism the Good-Samaritan out in the ocean comes to the rescue of another, it is out of Self-interest (Or in your terms, Mutualistic relationships). Mariners help out other mariners, because there is an expectation between them that by helping them, they will help you if you need it in the future. That is the sole reason such things occur. Not because they just love helping others, or whatever veil they put it in. The same goes for the rest of human interaction. For one decrying that I have no clue on human interaction, it appears you yourself do not.

I guarantee you that they would not. The closest example one has in the "real world" is of "free-marketing", and other "free-gifts" that are given out to prospective buyers. It isn't that it is free to the business, but to the consumer, and that it is in fact, a cost of marketing. The business does not continually and perpetually hand out free stuff to consumers, it expects them to pay for them if they sign up. This is the same as F2P MMO, or Free to Play MMO's, which aren't actually free. Any service that people come to expect to be done for free, without payment will be abused, and will go out of business. The under-arching fact that TANSTAAFL, is a foundational truth to our world.

No one expects you to. This is why such acts are often called heroic, because there is no expectation. There are individual acts that appear on the surface to someone as altruistic such as saving a baby from an oncoming train, but it is pre-faced in the mind as one would hope others would mutually come to the assistance of their hypothetical child. One always looks to a benefit from their actions to themselves. This is the under-arching fact of humanity. We are inherently self-interested individuals. This differs completely from selfishness. Expecting something for nothing. That is selfishness, and it appears you have some propensity for that.

Can you point me where I said that humans are selfish assholes? Nope. I just don't expect something for nothing unlike you -- THAT IS SELFISH.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Redstripe and those that are sympathetic to his POV, would you have forced the firefighters to help that guy even though the guy didn't pay for their services?

It's easy for you to say you would've helped, etc because you weren't there. And I don't see you starting a charity drive to help him out. That my friends, would make you a hypocrite or a liar.

So if a guy gets a flat tire on the side of the road and he didnt buy a spare to keep and is stuck there and you drive by do you pull over and lend him your tire, help him anyway you can, or do you drive by and stare at him and say to yourself well fuck you guy for not spending the $50 to keep a spare?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Gosh, this pay or else scheme sounds like a mob protection fee racket.

All they had to do was put the fire out and bill him for the $75 dollar fee.

Would you call Grocery Stores mob protection fee rackets? After-all, it is pay or else you die.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Would you call Grocery Stores mob protection fee rackets? After-all, it is pay or else you die.

Ill ask the same question to you...

So if a guy gets a flat tire on the side of the road and he didnt buy a spare to keep and is stuck there and you drive by do you pull over and lend him your tire, help him anyway you can, or do you drive by and stare at him and say to yourself well fuck you guy for not spending the $50 to keep a spare?

[Seraphim]

So if a guy gets a flat tire on the side of the road and he didnt buy a spare to keep and is stuck there and you drive by do you pull over and lend him your tire, help him anyway you can, or do you drive by and stare at him and say to yourself well fuck you guy for not spending the $50 to keep a spare?

"Here's a cell phone, call AAA...Done? Have a nice day sir"

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ill ask the same question to you...

So if a guy gets a flat tire on the side of the road and he didnt buy a spare to keep and is stuck there and you drive by do you pull over and lend him your tire, help him anyway you can, or do you drive by and stare at him and say to yourself well fuck you guy for not spending the $50 to keep a spare?

I actually do not carry a spare with me, as I take the risk associated with not carrying one. That is my personal choice. I have seen motorists on the side of the road myself before, and most times I do not stop as I am not in the correct lane and it is dangerous for me to hurridly get over to the far left or right lane. Would I give him a tire if I had one? No. Would I help him call a service that would come out and help, sure. I don't expect people to stop and give me free things, but some assistance to get into contact with the appropriate services, of course.

I don't see what this has to do with this issue though, as if equating stopping to help someone on the side of the road is as dangerous as running into a burning building...Would you expect someone to run inside your building to try and put the fire out if he would receive nothing in return? Are you going to go to his house with your firefighting specialized skills and help him put out a fire if he gets one? No? Then why do you expect him to do the same for you?

For the people who say I am selfish, it appears you are the selfish ones. I don't expect something to be done for free. I am not selfish.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

One of the things Ron Paul talks about when speaking from a Libertarian point of view is that of charity. To blindly follow an ideology or set of rules in spite of your fellow man is immoral. No matter how "good" those rules or "ism" is. To simplify...

- is it wrong to steal if you're starving?
- is it wrong to give if it is undeserved?

The whole point of "giving" is that it is undeserved. To give someone something that they deserve is simply payment. Should the fire department be expected to perform services unpaid for, no. Should the fire captain or whomever was in charge, have done the morally right thing and ordered the fire put out. Yes.

The argument then is, "Well if you don't have to pay right away for protection, no one will pay." This holds up until the fire department can no longer financially operate. Then people will pay, when they realize the fire department doesn't show up because their are no firefighters or equipment.

This situation occurred because people didn't want to take responsibility for their actions. The guilty party is on all sides. It wasn't policy that failed, but the people involved.

[tjeffersonsghost]

One of the things Ron Paul talks about when speaking from a Libertarian point of view is that of charity. To blindly follow an ideology or set of rules in spite of your fellow man is immoral. No matter how "good" those rules or "ism" is. To simplify...

- is it wrong to steal if you're starving?
- is it wrong to give if it is undeserved?

The whole point of "giving" is that it is undeserved. To give someone something that they deserve is simply payment. Should the fire department be expected to perform services unpaid for, no. Should the fire captain or whomever was in charge, have done the morally right thing and ordered the fire put out. Yes.

The argument then is, "Well if you don't have to pay right away for protection, no one will pay." This holds up until the fire department can no longer financially operate. Then people will pay, when they realize the fire department doesn't show up because their are no firefighters or equipment.

This situation occurred because people didn't want to take responsibility for their actions. The guilty party is on all sides. It wasn't policy that failed, but the people involved.

I can respect this argument.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Besides the argument put forth by Jefferson makes no sense, because he is equating a business with individual action. Does Jefferson expect AAA to stop and give assistance for free to every motorist on the side of the road? How long would AAA be in business if they did this? Would you pay for AAA if they stopped and gave free assistance to every motorist they happened upon on the side of the road? I certainly wouldn't.

[Bruno]

Exactly. You think people should render a service to this guy when he knowingly refused to pay for the service. Should they ALWAYS do that or just when the guy who lost his bet is a particularly good whiner? As a subscriber should I be willing to pay more to have the company provide the service for free to people who choose not to pay?

Knowingly refused? He says he forgot. Unless you are just making up your own reason he didn't pay.

[angelatc]

Knowingly refused? He says he forgot. Unless you are just making up your own reason he didn't pay.

In the early reports, he was quoted as saying that he believed the fire department would put the fire out even if he didn't pay it. I also had the impression that he intentionally blew it off.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Knowingly refused? He says he forgot. Unless you are just making up your own reason he didn't pay.

Seems an awful important thing to forget. Similarly, because he forgot that was his fault, and the consequences he suffered are a result of a lack of responsibility on his part. Why is the shifting of the blame from the individual who's responsibility it was, to other's who it wasn't?

When the tire meets the road it seems principles people supposedly hold -- responsibility, freedom, liberty, free association of people and business, etc. are thrown out the window under the guise of supposed societal normatives (E.g., do this for me for free or else you are the stingy bastard).

[phill4paul]

So if a guy gets a flat tire on the side of the road and he didnt buy a spare to keep and is stuck there and you drive by do you pull over and lend him your tire, help him anyway you can, or do you drive by and stare at him and say to yourself well fuck you guy for not spending the $50 to keep a spare?

For myself.....Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. It is a judgement call.

As for myself I have AAA auto insurance. $42 a year. $69 for plus with 100 mile towing.

.11 cents a day. .18 cents for plus.

I have in the past bought it for family and individuals in need. That way I know they and myself are covered regardless of the altruistic nature of strangers.

With the discounts it gives it pays for itself.

[tjeffersonsghost]

I actually do not carry a spare with me, as I take the risk associated with not carrying one. That is my personal choice. I have seen motorists on the side of the road myself before, and most times I do not stop as I am not in the correct lane and it is dangerous for me to hurridly get over to the far left or right lane. Would I give him a tire if I had one? No. Would I help him call a service that would come out and help, sure. I don't expect people to stop and give me free things, but some assistance to get into contact with the appropriate services, of course.

I don't see what this has to do with this issue though, as if equating stopping to help someone on the side of the road is as dangerous as running into a burning building...Would you expect someone to run inside your building to try and put the fire out if he would receive nothing in return

For the people who say I am selfish, it appears you are the selfish ones. I don't expect something to be done for free. I am not selfish.

Ah but it does have to do with the issue. You would be willing to pull over to the side of the road, walk up to a complete stranger, and give him your cell phone that you worked hard to pay for to use. All this for a guy who is just broken down on the side of the road. So would you expect anything in return for this help?

[tjeffersonsghost]

Besides the argument put forth by Jefferson makes no sense, because he is equating a business with individual action. Does Jefferson expect AAA to stop and give assistance for free to every motorist on the side of the road? How long would AAA be in business if they did this? Would you pay for AAA if they stopped and gave free assistance to every motorist they happened upon on the side of the road? I certainly wouldn't.

Business actions are individual actions. If individuals don't do the actions in the name of the business who does, robots?

Who knows, if AAA helped people on the side of the road who doesnt use their services they just might gain new customers. Sometimes you help because its the right thing to do and you do it with no expectations of returns. Sometimes however these good deeds do pay dividends.

[Seraphim]

Ah but it does have to do with the issue. You would be willing to pull over to the side of the road, walk up to a complete stranger, and give him your cell phone that you worked hard to pay for to use. All this for a guy who is just broken down on the side of the road. So would you expect anything in return for this help?

Cost benefit. You do a nice thing and the call might cost you a dollar. NO PROBLEM. It's VOLUNTARY. That is the key.

[tjeffersonsghost]

For myself.....Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. It is a judgement call.

As for myself I have AAA auto insurance. $42 a year. $69 for plus with 100 mile towing.

.11 cents a day. .18 cents for plus.

I have in the past bought it for family and individuals in need. That way I know they and myself are covered regardless of the altruistic nature of strangers.

With the discounts it gives it pays for itself.

And you expected nothing in return. But ya know, one of those families could win the lottery and say ya know, I remember Phill helped me when I was in need, I know he didnt expect anything in return but let me show him my appreciation. Sometimes you do things not because you expect something in return, because it is the right thing to do.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Cost benefit. You do a nice thing and the call might cost you a dollar. NO PROBLEM. It's VOLUNTARY. That is the key.

And that is the point. The firefighters should of done the right thing VOLUNTARILY because it was the right thing to do and not because of $75. But they didnt which shows their character and really the character of some on this site.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ah but it does have to do with the issue. You would be willing to pull over to the side of the road, walk up to a complete stranger, and give him your cell phone that you worked hard to pay for to use. All this for a guy who is just broken down on the side of the road. So would you expect anything in return for this help?

I wouldn't give him my cell-phone. I would let him use it for a brief moment to call AAA or other such services that he would pay for. Would I charge him for the call? No. It simply doesn't cost me hardly anything to help him. This is my personal cost of opportunity. Do I 'expect' others to do the same for me? In most circumstances, no. However, I would never put myself into such a situation in the first place. I always carry a cell-phone on me, and have AAA.

Why is it my responsibility to be responsible for others poor choices? The only area where there is a reasonable expectation with all parties involved, and with activities related to, is ocean-going vessels. This is one of those schelling points that is widely spread and known. Mostly too, this falls under fraternal associations (Such as fisherman & merchants, and not recreational day sailors). Fisherman are expected to come to the rescue of other fisherman because of the mutual expectation that each fisherman is themselves both a fisherman and a rescueman. This is really the only place one finds such a widespread use of this mutual benefit without direct contractual obligation. Recreational vessels not in distress are to use Towing services, like TowBoat USA, etc.

It is a completely different scenario to expect another person to put themselves in a burning building for your own benefit. Fisherman at least expect other fisherman to be versed in rescue techniques and safety, and understand that each are capable of coming to the rescue of another, however, there is no expectation that members of society are to all be versed in firefighting techniques, safety, and have the correct gear to mutually assist each other. There is no expectation of mutual assurity here. To expect free help in return for nothing is selfish and we should not be defending such actions. To say I am the ill-gotten, mean one is to say that ignorance is knowledge, and war is peace.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And that is the point. The firefighters should of done the right thing VOLUNTARILY because it was the right thing to do and not because of $75. But they didnt which shows their character and really the character of some on this site.

This is completely ridiculous. Why do you expect someone to put their lives in danger for someone so completely selfish as to expect free services? WHY DO YOU DEFEND THAT?

[pcosmar]

"Here's a cell phone, call AAA...Done? Have a nice day sir"

The man has homeowners insurance, So this Non-Point is irrelevant.

Insurance of not has NOTHING to do with a Fire Dept Paid For With Public Funds.

This Fire Dept does NOT run on a $75 fee

It is Funded and run on Tax Money.
The man Pays Tax.

All argument about free market fire departments have NOTHING to do with reality.
They get Tennessee State Tax money.
They get Federal FEMA Tax money.

Their little $75 Fee is at best an office fund, and more likely a local scam.

[smokemonsc]

One of the things Ron Paul talks about when speaking from a Libertarian point of view is that of charity. To blindly follow an ideology or set of rules in spite of your fellow man is immoral. No matter how "good" those rules or "ism" is. To simplify...

- is it wrong to steal if you're starving?
- is it wrong to give if it is undeserved?

The whole point of "giving" is that it is undeserved. To give someone something that they deserve is simply payment. Should the fire department be expected to perform services unpaid for, no. Should the fire captain or whomever was in charge, have done the morally right thing and ordered the fire put out. Yes.

The argument then is, "Well if you don't have to pay right away for protection, no one will pay." This holds up until the fire department can no longer financially operate. Then people will pay, when they realize the fire department doesn't show up because their are no firefighters or equipment.

This situation occurred because people didn't want to take responsibility for their actions. The guilty party is on all sides. It wasn't policy that failed, but the people involved.

I agree with you for the most part - except: Is it wrong to steal if you're starving?

Absolutely: You either have moral principles or you don't. I don't agree with moral relativism. I do believe in imperfect knowledge, so your conclusion could change based on what you know but your principles (or lack thereof) is the foundation of your sense of morality.

Changing one's mind based on new information != moral relativism and is not mutually exclusive to basing your morality off a set of principles.

[tjeffersonsghost]

This is completely ridiculous. Why do you expect someone to put their lives in danger for someone so completely selfish as to expect free services? WHY DO YOU DEFEND THAT?

Without knowing his personal financial situation I have no way to know the extent of his selfishness. I reckon that he didnt expect his house to burn down which means that he never expected to need these free services. Just like the guy who didnt buy the spare tire sometimes you dont think these things can happen to you, that is, till it does. Im not defending selfishness or even stupidity. Im defending morality as a whole and morality is something we lack in our country today. I dont think we need god to have morality either like some will say....

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The man has homeowners insurance, So this Non-Point is irrelevant.

Insurance of not has NOTHING to do with a Fire Dept Paid For With Public Funds.

This Fire Dept does NOT run on a $75 fee

It is Funded and run on Tax Money.
The man Pays Tax.

All argument about free market fire departments have NOTHING to do with reality.
They get Tennessee State Tax money.
They get Federal FEMA Tax money.

Their little $75 Fee is at best an office fund, and more likely a local scam.

Can you please show some documentation of this? If it has received public funds in the case of tax dollars, the department is obligated to serve its payers. If however, it has not received tax payer dollars, then it has no obligation to serve anyone it does not wish to serve, or who has not paid for their services.

[pcosmar]

This is completely ridiculous. Why do you expect someone to put their lives in danger for someone so completely selfish as to expect free services?

I do. I have. I likely will again, simply because It Is The Right Thing To Do.

[Bruno]

Seems an awful important thing to forget. Similarly, because he forgot that was his fault, and the consequences he suffered are a result of a lack of responsibility on his part. Why is the shifting of the blame from the individual who's responsibility it was, to other's who it wasn't?

When the tire meets the road it seems principles people supposedly hold -- responsibility, freedom, liberty, free association of people and business, etc. are thrown out the window under the guise of supposed societal normatives (E.g., do this for me for free or else you are the stingy bastard).

I wasn't shifting the blame. I was correcting that the man's statement was that he forgot to pay, not that he refused to pay the fee.

I agree it is an important thing to forget about.

[Seraphim]

And that is the point. The firefighters should of done the right thing VOLUNTARILY because it was the right thing to do and not because of $75. But they didnt which shows their character and really the character of some on this site.

No disagreement that they SHOULD have from a moral standpoint. People like that always get what is coming to them however. ALWAYS.

You cannot legistlate morality through force and coersion...that is a self defeating concept.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Without knowing his personal financial situation I have no way to know the extent of his selfishness. I reckon that he didnt expect his house to burn down which means that he never expected to need these free services. Just like the guy who didnt buy the spare tire sometimes you dont think these things can happen to you, that is, till it does. Im not defending selfishness or even stupidity. Im defending morality as a whole and morality is something we lack in our country today. I dont think we need god to have morality either like some will say....

We need responsibility and accountability for ones actions. The problem with this country is not morality, but one of responsibility.

[tjeffersonsghost]

No disagreement that they SHOULD have from a moral standpoint. People like that always get what is coming to them however. ALWAYS.

You cannot legistlate morality through force and coersion...that is a self defeating concept.

No one legislated anything. On the contrary these guys had a chance to do the right thing even though the local government told them they didnt have to...

[phill4paul]

And you expected nothing in return. But ya know, one of those families could win the lottery and say ya know, I remember Phill helped me when I was in need, I know he didnt expect anything in return but let me show him my appreciation. Sometimes you do things not because you expect something in return, because it is the right thing to do.

Yes. Sometimes. Voluntary.

Kinda like an example I heard this weekend....

A friend of mines dad is a generous sort.
He will charge the hell out of people that are well off because he knows he can afford it.
For example a well to do woman asked how much to replace a brick that was broken around a vent. He said $100 bucks. She said no. Her hubby tried to do it on her own. screwed it up even worse and she approached him again and said $200. She asked why the rate change and he informed her that he could not even go into her husbands doctors office without even being charged $200 dollars. She hired him.
That is business sense.
Now for the generous part. He is a member of a church. He would often help out select individuals that were TRULY in need.
He offset this by charging the individuals in the first scenario more.
However, as word got around that he was the kind of mason that would help those in need word got around and there were more and more people that called on him for "help" that truly didn't need it.
They were just looking for a deal.

So the moral of the story is if ya got it pay up. If ya don't then politely ask.
But never, ever, presume that any other individual "owes" you a lick of anything.

That's as bad as being a liberal.

And a BTW. I had said in an earlier post that if I was the on scene commander I probably would have just went ahead and did it and considered it a "training exercise."
I would have certainly said in any responce to an article that as an on scene commander I decided to use this as a "training exercise" and that it is not the normal operating procedure for the department to put out fires for those that do not contribute and that in the future those individuals that do not pay the fee may not expect the same results.

[silverhandorder]

This is great we need all services to run like this. Of course they are not perfect in the beginning, nothing is. There should be an option to pay for full cost of rescue if you did not pay yearly fee.

[Seraphim]

No one legislated anything. On the contrary these guys had a chance to do the right thing even though the local government told them they didnt have to...

Who told them to stand down?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes. Sometimes. Voluntary.

Kinda like an example I heard this weekend....

A friend of mines dad is a generous sort.
He will charge the hell out of people that are well off because he knows he can afford it.
For example a well to do woman asked how much to replace a brick that was broken around a vent. He said $100 bucks. She said no. Her hubby tried to do it on her own. screwed it up even worse and she approached him again and said $200. She asked why the rate change and he informed her that he could not even go into her husbands doctors office without even being charged $200 dollars. She hired him.
That is business sense.
Now for the generous part. He is a member of a church. He would often help out select individuals that were TRULY in need.
He offset this by charging the individuals in the first scenario more.
However, as word got around that he was the kind of mason that would help those in need word got around and there were more and more people that called on him for "help" that truly didn't need it.
They were just looking for a deal.

So the moral of the story is if ya got it pay up. If ya don't then politely ask.
But never, ever, presume that any other individual "owes" you a lick of anything.

That's as bad as being a liberal.

And a BTW. I had said in an earlier post that if I was the on scene commander I probably would have just went ahead and did it and considered it a "training exercise."
I would have certainly said in any responce to an article that as an on scene commander I decided to use this as a "training exercise" and that it is not the normal operating procedure for the department to put out fires for those that do not contribute and that in the future those individuals that do not pay the fee may not expect the same results.

But don't you know, I am the one who doesn't get human sociology. Your scenario is FALSE! It doesn't happen! People are altruistic like RedStripe believes! People who don't truly need help would never try to "scam" your father.

[Bruno]

I would like to think that I would have turned to my fellow firefighters and said, "Who's gonna help me hold this hose to save this house and the animals trapped inside?"

I've helped many people for free. I turn down money every time I help someone who is stranded, or I lend a hand to.

Screw the fee. There are other ways it could have been handled.

[silverhandorder]

I would like to think that I would have turned to my fellow firefighters and said, "Who's gonna help me hold this hose to save this house and the animals trapped inside?"

I've helped many people for free. I turn down money every time I help someone who is stranded, or I lend a hand to.

Screw the fee. There are other ways it could have been handled.

And next day less people would send funds to fire department. So next time they go on call they will not have proper gear and the house will burn. With choices there are consequences.

[Bruno]

And next day less people would send funds to fire department. So next time they go on call they will not have proper gear and the house will burn. With choices there are consequences.

Or, they could have billed him, and used it as a good example and educational opportunity to remind people to pay, or the same would happen to them.

[silverhandorder]

Or, they could have billed him, and used it as a good example and educational opportunity to remind people to pay, or the same would happen to them.

Didn't some one mention how there was some stupid law that prevented them from billing him the full price of rescue?

[phill4paul]

But don't you know, I am the one who doesn't get human sociology. Your scenario is FALSE! It doesn't happen! People are altruistic like RedStripe believes! People who don't truly need help would never try to "scam" your father.

Wasn't my father for clarification. Was a friends father.

Other than that you are spot on.

Redstripe believes that the glass if half full. When in reality it is just a friggen' glass with some shit in it.

[nobody's_hero]

I would like to think that I would have turned to my fellow firefighters and said, "Who's gonna help me hold this hose to save this house and the animals trapped inside?"

I've helped many people for free. I turn down money every time I help someone who is stranded, or I lend a hand to.

Screw the fee. There are other ways it could have been handled.

The problem is there was no way to help them for 'free'. Firefighters could have helped, sure, but it would have 'free' only to the extent of their equipment being paid for by the folks in the city limits and those in the county who paid the fees.

Just like our politicians help needy people all the time for 'free.'

Someone's paying for it. With or without their consent.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Hahah, you have such an elementary understanding of human reciprocity, social duties, social norms, etc.

I guarantee you that if the firefighters had put this family's fire out, not only would people continue to pay - more people would pay. People like to be a part of and contribute to something good, and an organization that makes an effort of living up to the moral expectations of the community is serves and the community that sustains it will be better supported. I don't expect you to really understand why that is, again, because you simply don't understand how human beings actually interact.

...

I'm sure you don't realize that it's a strawman simply because you cannot differentiate why most people view the fire department as having a social/moral obligation in this scenario and not the outlandish ones you suggest. You have a fundamental deficiency in your understanding how how human empathy and social norms interact. No one expects me to wander the train tracks day and night looking for babies to save from being run over. But I am expected to save a child when it is in danger and I could easily and directly do so. Do you grasp that, at all?

Of course, this leads to a spectrum of social expectations. Uh-oh! There's a lot of gray area in there! Lots of "thin" libertarians don't like that. They like to focus on simple, easy questions such as "is the state involved? If so I can just pin blame on the state and I can avoid any tough questions that don't have easy, cookie-cutter answers that fit into my preferred political ideology."

You sound like you are describing yourself when you essentially say that all humans are selfish assholes, but that's objectively false for most people. I'm not arguing that it's the "nature" of man to be altruistic (although there's a good argument for that, seeing as how altruism dominated human society for hundreds of thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution), but it's an objective fact that people generally are.

Notice the complete lack of factual context for this question. To the thin libertarian, everything is boiled down to black and white abstract principles (and to get there, you have to cut out all that, tough, messy stuff like history, social relationships, family obligations, etc).

My answer is, yes - sometimes. But the fact is, when I do so, I'm not really paying for the service so much as I am paying for something else, or doing so for some other motivation (which likely plays no role in your watered-down world-view).

...

Exactly what I was describing above. You don't want to deal with social obligations because it's too complex, it's not easy to have definite answers all the time, and the thin libertarian ideology has nothing to say about it. Oh, and it doesn't advance your political agenda.

Actually libertarian ideology has a lot to say about social obligations. It says when their is competition and free markets people can voluntarily support moral choices or start one. How much more moral can an ideology be to support individual choice?

This rural area had a choice. This rural area could have started a volunteer fire department. This rural area could have done a lot of things but the people in this rural area for whatever reason supported a system of paying a neighboring city fire department or doing without fire protection.

What libertarian ideology does not say is that if you make a bad choice you are guaranteed a good result.


You clearly don't understand why anyone would continue to pay the $75 fee because you don't understand how people make value judgments.

So I am at someones house recently and they are griping about how expensive everything is getting. I listened to this long winded story about how Direct TV lied to them and screwed them and as soon as the two year contract was up they switched to cable. I didn't catch the exact date because at first I thought this was an old story but apparently the contract ended like a week ago. The ironic part is he was telling me how expensive cable was and about that time a Direct TV van showed up. I said look it's your favorite company and they must have a wrong address now you can go tell them to f*** off. Turns out he just signed up for an At&T/Direct TV bundle because it is $60 per month cheaper than cable. Now I get two LOL's from this event. One for the ride home and one for your expertise on value judgements.


Do I need any more evidence that you are disconnected from reality? Firefighters choose to become firefighters for a lot more reasons than a paycheck. Wow I really cannot believe how unaware you are of how the world actually operates.

Have you talked to any firefighters lately? I just spoke with one about two weeks ago and I must admit I was extremely out of touch with fire fighters so it was interesting to hear this guy bitch about how many repeat calls they get to the poor sections of town to the same people on welfare. He was very aware of his cities fiscal problems and it bugged him he had to serve what he felt like were unappreciative people taking advantage of the public system.


Do you think a man standing next to the train track should, as a matter of either social or moral obligation, pick up a baby who is in the track and remove it to safety, if doing so posses no real risk or cost upon the man?

I think it is irrelevant because I do not believe force should be used against this man regardless of his decision. Ostracize... go for it. Force... not cool.

The market is working perfectly. People in this rural area will reevaluate their choice in fire services. But whatever the outcome, the people will still probably support some kind of intervention in the market to force neighbors to use the popular chosen monopoly or do without.

[tjeffersonsghost]

And next day less people would send funds to fire department. So next time they go on call they will not have proper gear and the house will burn. With choices there are consequences.

How do you know? You keep saying this as if you know this would be the scenario. Maybe not everyone is a greedy as others. Maybe people would say, ya know, these guys did a good thing, they help people out and we need to show them our appreciation. Maybe instead of sending $75 they will send $100. Maybe the guy who they helped would send them a check for $1000.

[silverhandorder]

How do you know? You keep saying this as if you know this would be the scenario. Maybe not everyone is a greedy as others. Maybe people would say, ya know, these guys did a good thing, they help people out and we need to show them our appreciation. Maybe instead of sending $75 they will send $100. Maybe the guy who they helped would send them a check for $1000.

I don't know for 100% but as a fire fighter getting paid I would not risk it. And I would not expect them to risk it either.

[Bruno]

Didn't some one mention how there was some stupid law that prevented them from billing him the full price of rescue?

I scanned through the posts, I might have missed that.


The problem is there was no way to help them for 'free'. Firefighters could have helped, sure, but it would have 'free' only to the extent of their equipment being paid for by the folks in the city limits and those in the county who paid the fees.

Just like our politicians help needy people all the time for 'free.'

Someone's paying for it. With or without their consent.

I understand that. It still doesn't change my opinion.

[phill4paul]

How do you know? You keep saying this as if you know this would be the scenario. Maybe not everyone is a greedy as others. Maybe people would say, ya know, these guys did a good thing, they help people out and we need to show them our appreciation. Maybe instead of sending $75 they will send $100. Maybe the guy who they helped would send them a check for $1000.

And maybe he wouldn't. Then maybe others within the community would decide not to. And maybe the fire department would be left with rusting POS that wouldn't work when they went out on a call.

And then maybe the government would have to step in and charge rural residents a tax instead of a voluntary fee.

[Romulus]

Their little $75 Fee is at best an office fund, and more likely a local scam.

Something tells me there's more to the story and it was not about him paying that $75, there might have been some prior history between him and the fire dept.. who knows.

[erowe1]

Who are you talking about?

You. The one who when you don't pay the bill for someone else's fire protection there's nothing wrong with it, but when someone else doesn't pay, they're disgusting.

[pcosmar]

Well for those that think, or are even capable of it.
http://www.city-data.com/city/South-Fulton-Tennessee.html
Some statistics, though a few years old.

And a look at the Fire Dept.
http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm
Small town , Yes.

At $75 dollars a year. The residents could not have been even paying the salaries of the 3 full time employees. let alone Trucks, Fuel and sundries.

TAXES paid for it.

[pcosmar]

Something tells me there's more to the story and it was not about him paying that $75, there might have been some prior history between him and the fire dept.. who knows.

Small town politics. Very likely.

[silverhandorder]

Isn't it a tax inside city limits?

[Bruno]

Isn't it a tax inside city limits?

From the sounds of it, yes, which helps pay for the large majority of the department's operating costs. The fee is just a way to recoup some of the money when they respond to calls outside of the city limits.

That's my understanding, I could be wrong.

[phill4paul]

Well for those that think, or are even capable of it.
http://www.city-data.com/city/South-Fulton-Tennessee.html
Some statistics, though a few years old.

And a look at the Fire Dept.
http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm
Small town , Yes.

At $75 dollars a year. The residents could not have been even paying the salaries of the 3 full time employees. let alone Trucks, Fuel and sundries.

TAXES paid for it.

As I said before Pete he wasn't a city resident. He was rural. Didn't pay city taxes. Seems to me the $75 fee was to make up the difference if they were called to respond.

City taxes paid for the station, trucks and firefighters. Those OUTSIDE the city limits, rural, did not contribute. Therefore a $75 dollar fee to respond outside the city.

City taxes paid for it. Did this man, living in the rural county, pay city taxes?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I got my piece of country side... now I want you city folk to pay for my fire protection...

and this public road in front my hose only me and 3 other people use... you city folk don't mind paying for that too do ya?

[phill4paul]

This scenario is the epitome of the personal responsibility that we advocate here on RPFs.

This man had a chance to pay a voluntary fee to recieve fire protection.

He choose not to. Either willfully or through forgetfulness. Both entail personal responsibility.

We say here on RPFs that WE could take better maeasures if it just wasn't for government taxes.

Did this man? Did he do enough for prevention? Did he have a plan if prevention failed? No he did not pay the tax that funded the department. He did not take the measures needed to put out a fire in his home.

No. This man rolled the dice and relied on the belief that others would support him in his time of need.

And here people are saying that somehow this individual should have been SERVED by his community. What did he do to contribute?

Sounds downright liberal instead of libertarian to me.

[Stary Hickory]

Nothing wrong at all with what the fire dept did. This is what many here claim to want. I say claim because you can't go all emotional and start screaming for the gun and say you are against statism.

The man was given an option to subscribe to a service. It was not forced on him he was FREE to exercise his own right to decline the service. With freedom comes responsibility. The man wants his freedom but wants to be free from the consequences of his actions.

I feel no sympathy for this man. The fire dept could have accepted full payment for the cost of the rescue and put it out, that would have been acceptable...but they in no way shape or form should have to do that. It would be better to have more than one fire dept offering service, and then maybe there would be more flexible payment options.

As it is no one should be forced to pay for a service or be forced to render a service. And this is how this played out.

[pcosmar]

From the sounds of it, yes, which helps pay for the large majority of the department's operating costs. The fee is just a way to recoup some of the money when they respond to calls outside of the city limits.

That's my understanding, I could be wrong.

Nothing about that on the City Department web site.

http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm



Member of the West Tennessee and Western Kentucky Mutual Aid Pack, and Automatic Mutual Aid with City of Fulton, Kentucky on all structure fires within the corporate city limits.

ISO rating of Class 5 within the City limits.

5 mile radius coverage area under Rural Fire Protection Service.

19 Fire Fighters involved in an ongoing, intense training program.

There are several other questions raised as this has become politicized and publicized.
This is not as is misreported a Subscription Based Fire Dept. It could not possibly support itself as such.

[Stary Hickory]

This scenario is the epitome of the personal responsibility that we advocate here on RPFs.

This man had a chance to pay a voluntary fee to recieve fire protection.

He choose not to. Either willfully or through forgetfulness. Both entail personal responsibility.

We say here on RPFs that WE could take better maeasures if it just wasn't for government taxes.

Did this man? Did he do enough for prevention? Did he have a plan if prevention failed? No he did not pay the tax that funded the department. He did not take the measures needed to put out a fire in his home.

No. This man rolled the dice and relied on the belief that others would support him in his time of need.

And here people are saying that somehow this individual should have been SERVED by his community. What did he do to contribute?

Sounds downright liberal instead of libertarian to me.

Yes the position some folks are taking is scary IMO. Emotional overload crowds out rational thought and leads to slavery and violence.

[phill4paul]

This is not as is misreported a Subscription Based Fire Dept. It could not possibly support itself as such.

It is not. It is a City tax paid Department that offered it's services to rural, outside the city, inhabitants for a fee.

[pcosmar]

This scenario is the epitome of the personal responsibility that we advocate here on RPFs.

This man had a chance to pay a voluntary fee to recieve fire protection.

He choose not to. Either willfully or through forgetfulness. Both entail personal responsibility.

We say here on RPFs that WE could take better maeasures if it just wasn't for government taxes.

Did this man? Did he do enough for prevention? Did he have a plan if prevention failed? No he did not pay the tax that funded the department. He did not take the measures needed to put out a fire in his home.

No. This man rolled the dice and relied on the belief that others would support him in his time of need.

And here people are saying that somehow this individual should have been SERVED by his community. What did he do to contribute?

Sounds downright liberal instead of libertarian to me.

Well I will readily side with responsibility. The guy should have put out the Trash fire long before it got to his house, and could have gotten his animals out of the house instead of wasting time calling and arguing with these folks.
On the other-hand , he does have fire insurance, so he can recover some of his loss.
He( I assume) did pay property tax and income tax. (his home was not taken and he is not in jail) so he does have the right to expect some return on that investment.

[PBrady]

This is why libertarians are perceived as completely out of touch with reality. In reality, it's just absolutely shitty and pathetic to do NOTHING to help your neighbor - yes, the real world of actual relationships with you community; a world that I sometimes question whether or not some of you actually live in.
This.

Vulgar libertarians, do not fear. No one is threatening to take away your "sacred" right to stand and watch a baby being run over by a train if you just don't feel like saving it (the baby never paid it's $75 run-over-by-a-train insurance). But we are calling you a fucking asshole and worthless degenerate who should be disrespected and rejected by society if that's what you choose to do.
lol


Hahah, you have such an elementary understanding of human reciprocity, social duties, social norms, etc.

I guarantee you that if the firefighters had put this family's fire out, not only would people continue to pay - more people would pay. People like to be a part of and contribute to something good, and an organization that makes an effort of living up to the moral expectations of the community is serves and the community that sustains it will be better supported. I don't expect you to really understand why that is, again, because you simply don't understand how human beings actually interact.

The fact that you would even bring up sociology is laughable considering your completely erroneous view of human beings as accounting robots who will jump on any "free-rider" opportunity the second they calculate they will save a single dollar by doing so. You clearly don't understand why anyone would continue to pay the $75 fee because you don't understand how people make value judgments.
What I've noticed is many people who get to know some economic theory, which is nearly all based on assumption, forgets to take in to account that they've been making assumptions the whole time. That's where that robotic mentality, and inability to see how absurd what they are saying is, comes from.



Just doing their job, they're not at fault. God that is eerie.... almost 1930s Germany.

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

No doubt the guy should of paid the $75 in the beginning but is this what America has come to? Let a guys life go into flames over $75? Years of pictures and other sentimental things just because he didnt fork over the protection fee?

I agree with Red Stripe, this is exactly why Libertarians are looked at as wacky in the main stream. Theory is all fine and dandy, that is until you are affected by it. Sell out your fellow American over $75. Anyone who thinks that is justifiable is just heartless.
Basically summed it up as well.


Would I give him a tire if I had one? No. Would I help him call a service that would come out and help, sure. I don't expect people to stop and give me free things, but some assistance to get into contact with the appropriate services, of course.
What?!?!! You don't 'EXPECT' someone to give you free products, but you 'EXPECT' them to lend you their services....FOR FREE?!?! YOU FUCKING PIG FASCIST SCUM!!!!!

[pcosmar]

It is not. It is a City tax paid Department that offered it's services to rural, outside the city, inhabitants for a fee.

I could not find anything on an alleged "City Tax" But I did find that there is a Property Tax in Tenn. As well as a state income tax.
A small town of approx 2000 people (including children and Elder retired folk) has a Tax base to support this? serious doubts. It comes from State and Federal Taxes.
Same as the Volunteer Fire Dept. where I live.

[phill4paul]

Well I will readily side with responsibility. The guy should have put out the Trash fire long before it got to his house, and could have gotten his animals out of the house instead of wasting time calling and arguing with these folks.
On the other-hand , he does have fire insurance, so he can recover some of his loss.
He( I assume) did pay property tax and income tax. (his home was not taken and he is not in jail) so he does have the right to expect some return on that investment.

Certainly there are things we can do and appropriate actions we can take if we are responsible.
I've had a chimney fire before. Fire plan intact to get all animals out of the house. Notify department. Actions needed on my own and by everyone else living there.
All went smoothly. (Except for the fire itself. I take personal responsibility as I did not check chimney for creosote build-up half way through a mild season when the I did not burn the wood "hot".;))
I had chemsticks to put the fire out. They were since outlawed (because of "environmental damage." Like a house burning down is not environmentally damaging. :rolleyes: (They are back on the market now. Check them out here. http://www.chimfex.com/)
The fire was out before the volunteer unit got there.
I also turned them on to the flares. They just filled plastic sandwich bags with the extinguisher then dropped them down the chimney.

I lived out side the city. I did not pay city taxes and a city unit did not respond. I did live in a rural community and I supported the local volunteer service either by direct donations, helping with fundraisers and volunteering for other community tasks such as road clearance when trees fell.

I and my fellow "rural" citizens took responsibility for ourselves.

This man did not. And now people want to boo-hoo for him.

Like I said my good nature would have lead me to help him.

However, I don't cry over the fact that his personal actions lead to his house burning down.

He HAD the choice.

[phill4paul]

I could not find anything on an alleged "City Tax" But I did find that there is a Property Tax in Tenn. As well as a state income tax.
A small town of approx 2000 people (including children and Elder retired folk) has a Tax base to support this? serious doubts. It comes from State and Federal Taxes.
Same as the Volunteer Fire Dept. where I live.

Was there a Volunteer Fire Dept. in his rural community. If he did not wish to pay the $75 dollar fee for coverage why did he not start one?

Taxes are divided up in may different manners. Sure he paid a state tax. Does the state offer fire service to everyone. If they did how much more would taxes be? Sure the federal government takes tax dollars and gives a small kick back after its take. Should the federal government offer fire service to every household? How much more would the federal tax be.

In the end this is about personal responsibility. This man did not live up to it. Hopefully his insurance will pay off and he'll rebuild with a bit left over to start a voluntary service.

[phill4paul]

This.

lol


What I've noticed is many people who get to know some economic theory, which is nearly all based on assumption, forgets to take in to account that they've been making assumptions the whole time. That's where that robotic mentality, and inability to see how absurd what they are saying is, comes from.



Basically summed it up as well.


What?!?!! You don't 'EXPECT' someone to give you free products, but you 'EXPECT' them to lend you their services....FOR FREE?!?! YOU FUCKING PIG FASCIST SCUM!!!!!

Do you have something to say or do you generally let others speak for you?

[phill4paul]

//

[QueenB4Liberty]

Just doing their job, they're not at fault. God that is eerie.... almost 1930s Germany.

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

No doubt the guy should of paid the $75 in the beginning but is this what America has come to? Let a guys life go into flames over $75? Years of pictures and other sentimental things just because he didnt fork over the protection fee?

I agree with Red Stripe, this is exactly why Libertarians are looked at as wacky in the main stream. Theory is all fine and dandy, that is until you are affected by it. Sell out your fellow American over $75. Anyone who thinks that is justifiable is just heartless.

Especially when it wasn't even his house/field that started the fire. That's very unfortunate this happened to him. I would have liked to think our society is one that would truly come to the aide of someone in need. I think life and death situations (because a fire is definitely life and death) are different than your normal everyday services.

[nobody's_hero]

Take out the "fire department" and put in "hospital", and you have the groundwork for the Obamacare bill.

[phill4paul]

Take out the "fire department" and put in "hospital", and you have the groundwork for the Obamacare bill.

;)

Oh, but it was an emergency.:rolleyes:

[QueenB4Liberty]

Take out the "fire department" and put in "hospital", and you have the groundwork for the Obamacare bill.

What? I thought you could walk into the ER and still be treated?

[phill4paul]

What? I thought you could walk into the ER and still be treated?

That's exactly what everyone thinks. That's his point. They don't have to pay a "fee."
They should be treated for free because it is an "emergency" and they didn't prepare for it so therefore others should pay the fee for them.

This is the point of personal responsibility.

[pcosmar]

Take out the "fire department" and put in "hospital", and you have the groundwork for the Obamacare bill.

Not sure that is accurate.
Community defense at some point changed.
Bucket brigades became fire departments
The militia was replaced with a standing army.
The Posse was replaced with Police.

Or and there are privatized armies and Privatized Police. Hired guns to the highest bidder.

Progressive? Some progress has really not been good.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Especially when it wasn't even his house/field that started the fire. That's very unfortunate this happened to him. I would have liked to think our society is one that would truly come to the aide of someone in need. I think life and death situations (because a fire is definitely life and death) are different than your normal everyday services.

Why is it any different? Being alive is a life or death situation. Walking out your front door everyday interacting with a world of people you do not know or trust is a life or death situation.

[libertarian4321]

The homeowner was playing games.

He thought he'd get service even if he didn't pay for it.

Well, they called his bluff.

How much you wanna bet a bunch of other folks who were playing the same game pony up $75 really quick after reading this story?

[Mini-Me]

Although they should be legally allowed to do it, letting the guy's house burn was a pretty crappy thing for the department to do. I agree the guy was a smug asshole who thought he could take advantage of the system without taking any responsibility for propping it up, but there are still much better ways to make a point about personal responsibility and guard against moral hazard.

The best course of action would have been to get a quick agreement from the guy to pay for the full cost of the rescue, then save his house, and then sue the crap out of him if he didn't pay up. That would have covered costs and made the point that you can't expect service for free [or pool risk after the fact], without making the lesson unnecessarily cruel.

Of course, that's all under the following two assumptions:
The guy was paying no taxes to sustain the department, either.
The fire department does not hold a coercively enforced monopoly. Starting up a competing fire department is perfectly legal there (without egregious regulations).
If either assumption is false - and I bet the second one is, if not both - the fire department should have had a much greater obligation to save the guy's house.

[pcosmar]

The homeowner was playing games.

He thought he'd get service even if he didn't pay for it.

Well, they called his bluff.

How much you wanna bet a bunch of other folks who were playing the same game pony up $75 really quick after reading this story?

What, 10 more rural farms are going to pony up $75.?
Woo Woo. Big money there. They can fill the gas tanks.

:rolleyes:

[RedStripe]

"If you rescued babies from the train track every time they crawl on to them, the parents would have less incentive to watch out for their kids!"

---Retarded Libertarians, 2010

[phill4paul]

What, 10 more rural farms are going to pony up $75.?
Woo Woo. Big money there. They can fill the gas tanks.

:rolleyes:

Maybe the $75 dollars is the cost of the gas to go from a city station to a rural residence and this is what they based it on?

[QueenB4Liberty]

Why is it any different? Being alive is a life or death situation. Walking out your front door everyday interacting with a world of people you do not know or trust is a life or death situation.

It's not really the same thing as watching all of your belongings and years of memories burn right in front of you, possibly getting out of control and spreading. I was looking for the quote, "both parties are to blame here." because the guy was an asshole for not paying, the fire department were assholes for just letting his house burn down.

[Mini-Me]

"If you rescued babies from the train track every time they crawl on to them, the parents would have less incentive to watch out for their kids!"

---Retarded Libertarians, 2010

As someone who values both your position and Austrian Econ Disciple's, and who takes a middle position between them, I think I'm in a pretty good position to say you're being unfair with the straw men. ;) The hard-liners have a much better point about moral hazard than you're acknowledging. At the same time, you have a much better point about human decency than they're acknowledging.

As you've said before, there are aspects of the truth in most points of view.

[pcosmar]

Maybe the $75 dollars is the cost of the gas to go from a city station to a rural residence and this is what they based it on?

Perhaps,
And I have no Idea how much he pays in taxes either. Or has paid over the course of time that he has owned that property.

In a rural area it is silly to depend on any state services, but at the same time,,,
since the trucks were there, to not render aid to someone in need is just plain shitty.

[phill4paul]

Not sure that is accurate.
Community defense at some point changed.
Bucket brigades became fire departments
The militia was replaced with a standing army.
The Posse was replaced with Police.

Or and there are privatized armies and Privatized Police. Hired guns to the highest bidder.

Progressive? Some progress has really not been good.

He is exactly accurate here I think Pete.

Because the mentality here has been that he deserved to have the fire department put out his fire even though he failed to take responsibility for his own self.

He could have either payed the trifling $75 fee. Or provided for himself.

People in need of medical assistance could have payed a fee ( in my town there is a doctor that gives unlimited visits for $35 a month, of course no emergency, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure).

Many let there conditions persist to the point that they become an emergency.

At that point half the public is outraged that they were not treated and half are pissed that they were treated on their dime because they have to pay higher rates.

And since half are pissed and half are outraged the government comes in and says we will be the arbitrators.

I guarantee this will be resolved when the city annexes the rural area and everyone in the rural area bitches about having to pay city taxes.

[phill4paul]

since the trucks were there, to not render aid to someone in need is just plain shitty.

I agree 100%. They should have just deemed it a "training exercise."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree 100%. They should have just deemed it a "training exercise."

Why would it be shitty? Let's use this hypothetical proposition for a moment. You live next door to this person, and currently there is no State-apparatus. You live in a State-less society. You have paid for fire services in event of a fire, or have insurance that covers fire premiums in event of a fire. In other words -- you are covered to receive assistance in event a fire takes place. The person next door -- the person in the scenario -- has not. He has taken the risk that his house will not catch on fire, and it is a waste for him to pay for services he may never need. Unluckily for him, his house does catch on fire one day. Firetrucks from the fire services subscribed to by his neighbors arrive on scene to fight any fire that may spread to their subscribers (The people who live to the left and right of said person). Why is it shitty for the fire service to not put out the persons fire who has not subscribed to their service just because they are there to monitor the situation so the fire doesn't spread to their subscribers?

Would you rather have a scenario where they don't show up at all until fire has all ready been spread to their subscriber base? That makes no sense to me. In effect you are saying that they have an obligation to put it out because they arrived on scene to monitor the activity of the fire so it doesn't reach their subscribers houses.

In such a scenario we shouldn't be defending the person who made the choice not to pay for such a subscription by guilting, or forcing, the fire service to provide coverage to those who have not paid by some sense of moral duty. In fact, it is the home-owner who refused to pay for fire services who now demands service when his risk is called by nature who is the one we should be looking at. Why is this person so selfish? It is not the fire department who acted wrong, but the person demanding a service for free, and actively refusing to cover risk he knew he had.

He even acknowledged why he never paid. He said he thought they would help him anyways. A business cannot survive without getting paid. Personally, I would rather have fire services, than not having them available.

Now again, if there is any part tax-dollars going to this service paid to by this man, he should have received fire services.

There are risks you take by living in the country. That is, there are pros and cons to every situation you find yourself in. If you live in the country you shouldn't expect the same sort of services that an urban-dweller would expect. Similarly the city-dweller can't expect the same types of services you would find in the country to be found in the city. This abrogation of common sense is normally found in people like RedStripe, who believes that we have some sort of moral duty to help anyone in need for any reason regardless of consequence. I agree that those truly in need of help and who haven't put themselves willingly into known risk should be at least helped by individuals willing to do so, and would do so. The fact that RedStripe doesn't believe moral hazard exists in scenarios like this, is a dangerously foolish thing. Not having a fire service is worse than having a fire service who doesn't automatically help everyone who needs their help who doesn't ascribe to their services.

I have seen first hand what moral hazard is capable of. I see it every day when I go to work. People expecting the CG to do anything and everything for them and they put themselves into direct harm because of this false idea. There are hundreds of people who die every year because of this. I bet you that if people had to pay for a water rescue service voluntarily there wouldn't be nearly as many deaths as there is now.

[roho76]

Some of the responses I'm reading here are amazing. Nobody has said anything about the firefighters who would be risking their lives to put out the fire. For free no less. Now if their was people in the house and nobody did anything that's fucked up. But it doesn't take a fire fighter to try and rescue somebody from a burning building.

The fact is they chose not to pay. They lose. This can not be a cash on delivery service otherwise the fire department would go out of business. This type business depends on a pay up front model just like any other type of insurance. If you don't pay for car insurance and get in an accident you lose. I sure nobody here would be crying over someone in that situation. So what gives? $75 dollars is a small price to pay. Plus I can guarantee you that most of that town has, upon hearing this story, signed up for the service and you will probably never hear of a situation of this fire department showing up and watching a house burn to the ground. That is for sure.

[Mini-Me]

Some of the responses I'm reading here are amazing. Nobody has said anything about the firefighters who would be risking their lives to put out the fire. For free no less. Now if their was people in the house and nobody did anything that's fucked up. But it doesn't take a fire fighter to try and rescue somebody from a burning building.
Austrian Econ Disciple actually did point this out...just saying. ;)


The fact is they chose not to pay. They lose. This can not be a cash on delivery service otherwise the fire department would go out of business. This type business depends on a pay up front model just like any other type of insurance.
This isn't really true: The department can get a quick agreement from a non-subscriber to pay the FULL cost of the rescue (i.e. thousands of dollars), then put out the fire, then sue after-the-fact if the home-owner does not pay. That allows the fire department to cover its expenses, prevent moral hazard, and teach the non-subscriber a lesson about personal responsibility all at once, without resorting to roasting marshmallows over the guy's burning house (figuratively speaking). This works just like people paying out-of-pocket for health care. Given that a home-owning non-subscriber is a home-owner, they most likely have more than enough collateral to pay the full cost, even if they're broke...it's just gonna hurt a lot more than $75. ;)

They shouldn't be legally required to do that of course (unless they're funded by the non-subscriber's taxes or hold a coercive monopoly), but it's certainly a much kinder way of going about things, without sacrificing personal responsibility. Ultimately, charging the full rescue cost here (plus a standard profit margin of course) would have been more beneficial to both the fire department and the non-subscribing home-owner. The way they DID go about it - and the way you seem to advocate - was pointlessly harsh, assholish, and economically wasteful to everyone involved.


If you don't pay for car insurance and get in an accident you lose. I sure nobody here would be crying over someone in that situation. So what gives?
If you don't pay for car insurance and you get in an accident, you lose...as in, you have to pay the full price of repairs. It doesn't mean car repair shops are going to refuse to repair your car altogether though (which is a much closer parallel to the fire department refusing to put out the fire). I mean, they should be allowed to, legally, but it's not the coolest thing to do, and it doesn't benefit anyone to do so.


$75 dollars is a small price to pay. Plus I can guarantee you that most of that town has, upon hearing this story, signed up for the service and you will probably never hear of a situation of this fire department showing up and watching a house burn to the ground. That is for sure.
Heh...I bet half the town has down exactly what you say...and the other half is clamoring for coercive intervention, so that everyone can start paying the much higher city rates. ;)

Anyway, your points pretty much sum up the one side of the argument, but I think there's a better middle road to take that both acknowledges personal responsibility and avoids unnecessary destruction.

[phill4paul]

Why would it be shitty? Let's use this hypothetical proposition for a moment. You live next door to this person, and currently there is no State-apparatus. You live in a State-less society. You have paid for fire services in event of a fire, or have insurance that covers fire premiums in event of a fire. In other words -- you are covered to receive assistance in event a fire takes place. The person next door -- the person in the scenario -- has not. He has taken the risk that his house will not catch on fire, and it is a waste for him to pay for services he may never need. Unluckily for him, his house does catch on fire one day. Firetrucks from the fire services subscribed to by his neighbors arrive on scene to fight any fire that may spread to their subscribers (The people who live to the left and right of said person). Why is it shitty for the fire service to not put out the persons fire who has not subscribed to their service just because they are there to monitor the situation so the fire doesn't spread to their subscribers?

Would you rather have a scenario where they don't show up at all until fire has all ready been spread to their subscriber base? That makes no sense to me. In effect you are saying that they have an obligation to put it out because they arrived on scene to monitor the activity of the fire so it doesn't reach their subscribers houses.

In such a scenario we shouldn't be defending the person who made the choice not to pay for such a subscription by guilting, or forcing, the fire service to provide coverage to those who have not paid by some sense of moral duty. In fact, it is the home-owner who refused to pay for fire services who now demands service when his risk is called by nature who is the one we should be looking at. Why is this person so selfish? It is not the fire department who acted wrong, but the person demanding a service for free, and actively refusing to cover risk he knew he had.

He even acknowledged why he never paid. He said he thought they would help him anyways. A business cannot survive without getting paid. Personally, I would rather have fire services, than not having them available.

Now again, if there is any part tax-dollars going to this service paid to by this man, he should have received fire services.

There are risks you take by living in the country. That is, there are pros and cons to every situation you find yourself in. If you live in the country you shouldn't expect the same sort of services that an urban-dweller would expect. Similarly the city-dweller can't expect the same types of services you would find in the country to be found in the city. This abrogation of common sense is normally found in people like RedStripe, who believes that we have some sort of moral duty to help anyone in need for any reason. I agree that those truly in need of help and who haven't put themselves willingly into known risk should be at least helped by individuals willing to do so, and would do so. The fact that RedStripe doesn't believe moral hazard exists in scenarios like this, is a dangerously foolish thing. Not having a fire service is worse than having a fire service who doesn't automatically help everyone who needs their help who doesn't ascribe to their services.

tldr. I was speaking to fact that if I was the on scene commander I would have put it out. Specifically telling those under my command that they were not to put themselves in harms way and deem it a training exercise. And so when talking to reporters have given this account and also informing them that this was not the normal operating capacity of the department and that others should not expect the same results.
I've re-iterated a number of times in this thread. Check it if you want.

That's just how I roll. Baby. I wouldn't make it an issue because I would capitalize on the situation to increase the desire to have the service.

I've already made well my belief that I have no problem with them allowing the home to burn to cinders.

If that is what you want to hear. And you obviously do.

Had you even read my posts before this bullshit you posted to me?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

tldr. I was speaking to fact that if I was the on scene commander I would have put it out. Specifically telling those under my command that they were not to put themselves in harms way and deem it a training exercise. And so when talking to reporters have given this account and also informing them that this was not the normal operating capacity of the department and that others should not expect the same results.
I've re-iterated a number of times in this thread. Check it if you want.

That's just how I roll. Baby. I wouldn't make it an issue because I would capitalize on the situation to increase the desire to have the service.

I've already made well my belief that I have no problem with them allowing the home to burn to cinders.

If that is what you want to hear. And you obviously do.

Had you even read my posts before this bullshit you posted to me?

I was more of the mind wondering why you thought it shitty they didn't help. I gave the above scenario to see what part you thought shitty. I don't want some sort of blind loyalty to anything I say. That doesn't help anything.

Personally, I think it shitty of the homeowner to specifically not pay because he thought they would help him for free anyways, risking the lives of the firefighters and costing others increased payments than to pay for their services.

[phill4paul]

I was more of the mind wondering why you thought it shitty they didn't help. I gave the above scenario to see what part you thought shitty. I don't want some sort of blind loyalty to anything I say. That doesn't help anything.

When I say it is "shitty" I am speaking from a personal perspective. Not a societal one. That is why I bolded the "I."
For myself if I was the CIC at this conflagration I would have handled it differently. I think the CIC handled this situation in a shitty way.

As in without the fire department your house burns to the ground. Yawn.

Hero fire department saves house that did not pay fee. Homeowners were lucky their house caught fire on a training night. If their house had caught fire on any other night then it would have burned to the ground.

PR +1.

Your there. You have the equipment. You don't do it. You get a relentless internet argument.

I'm saying they were shitty by letting his house burn when they were present and had the ability to prevent it. Regardless of his status.

This could have turned into a hero op. Instead it turned into a zero flop.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

When I say it is "shitty" I am speaking from a personal perspective. Not a societal one. That is why I bolded the "I."
For myself if I was the CIC at this conflagration I would have handled it differently. I think the CIC handled this situation in a shitty way.

As in without the fire department your house burns to the ground. Yawn.

Hero fire department saves house that did not pay fee. Homeowners were lucky their house caught fire on a training night. If their house had caught fire on any other night then it would have burned to the ground.

PR +1.

Your there. You have the equipment. You don't do it. You get a relentless internet argument.

I'm saying they were shitty by letting his house burn when they were present and had the ability to prevent it. Regardless of his status.

This could have turned into a hero op. Instead it turned into a zero flop.

But, the fire department in such a scenario will always be there because of people who did procure their services. Are they going to say it was a training night every time? We can never know the future for certain, so this could happen again the next day. People would catch on pretty fast. I think people are just looking at this from that sole point in time, and not looking at what consequences would be derived from this sort of standard operating procedure.

The fact is -- if you don't procure for yourself fire services your house burns to the ground. You said it yourself...why the fight against what is a truth?

I agree with Mini-me in that they should have offered to help if he agreed to pay full cost. Did they? Did he refuse? I don't know.

[Mini-Me]

I was more of the mind wondering why you thought it shitty they didn't help. I gave the above scenario to see what part you thought shitty. I don't want some sort of blind loyalty to anything I say. That doesn't help anything.

Personally, I think it shitty of the homeowner to specifically not pay because he thought they would help him for free anyways, risking the lives of the firefighters and costing others increased payments than to pay for their services.

I think the fundamental misconception here is that only one side can act in a shitty manner. ;)

The home-owner was a smug asshole who thought he could expect service on someone else's dime. That was shitty, and he was also proven wrong. At the same time, the fire department acted spitefully in a way that favored dishing out a cruel lesson over helping both themselves and the non-subscribing home-owner: They could have charged the full cost of rescue plus profit to put out the fire, and both they and the home-owner would have been better off than they are today.* Regardless of legality**, both parties could have and should have made wiser and more caring decisions.

* This avoids the matter of possible injury to firefighters, but that's a threat they face with every job. If that's any reason to turn down this job, it would be just as much reason to turn down any other...unless the fire was worse or further along than usual.
** Odds are, the fire department is an enforced monopoly anyway, and I wouldn't be surprised if even the rural residents were charged tax as well.

EDIT: I just read your post above mine though, so it looks like we're on the same page anyway. :) I didn't consider whether the department actually offered to save the house for the full cost of rescue...but unless I hear that this happened, I'll just operate under the assumption they didn't offer.

[phill4paul]

But, the fire department in such a scenario will always be there because of people who did procure their services. Are they going to say it was a training night every time? We can never know the future for certain, so this could happen again the next day. People would catch on pretty fast. I think people are just looking at this from that sole point in time, and not looking at what consequences would be derived from this sort of standard operating procedure.

The fact is -- if you don't procure for yourself fire services your house burns to the ground. You said it yourself...why the fight against what is a truth?

I agree with Mini-me in that they should have offered to help if he agreed to pay full cost. Did they? Did he refuse? I don't know.

Do you have a disconnect in what I write and what you perceive I write?

Because your rebuttals do not reflect my posted history in this thread.

They follow closely what you are saying.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Do you have a disconnect in what I write and what you perceive I write?

Because your rebuttals do not reflect my posted history in this thread.

They follow closely what you are saying.

I am aware of your stance, but you seem to be taking time out of the equation. You said they should have helped him because it was shitty not to, even though you would defend their right not to. In lieu of this help you would have created a false story to veil the cover for the moral hazard you know would result.

Unfortunately for you the next day you get a similar call. Will you say it was a training exercise again? Would you say it shitty for not helping again? Or is it only a one-time deal?

Obviously people aren't that stupid. If everytime you go out and help someone who hasn't paid and say it was a training exercise people will be expecting you to help them calling it a training exercise. The same goes for the bail outs of the big banks. You don't think the banks think they will get bailed out again for the same moral hazards? They know they will. Just like in your scenario people will know they will get assistance even if they don't pay. You are banking on the fact that this won't happen again in a short period of time, but you cannot know the future, so you yourself are taking a risk. Why is it only shitty the first time?

[pcosmar]

[QUOTE=Mini-Me;2917880]

The home-owner was a smug asshole /QUOTE]

Where do you get that? I saw an interview with the man, discouraged and disappointed, yes.
Smug? Not that I saw.

Secondly, where does anyone get the idea that this is a business or that it is or ever has been self funded?
Where does anyone get the idea that the tax feeding bureaucrats that ordered any of this are either libertarian or Free market?

Ya'all are on some fantasy trip about what could or might be, but not on the reality of what is.

Sucks that this guy lost his home and belongings, It sucks that those that were able to help didn't.
At least his insurance is paying off.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

"If you rescued babies from the train track every time they crawl on to them, the parents would have less incentive to watch out for their kids!"

---Retarded Libertarians, 2010

http://funnyjunk.com/movies/50/

[roho76]

This isn't really true: The department can get a quick agreement from a non-subscriber to pay the FULL cost of the rescue (i.e. thousands of dollars), then put out the fire, then sue after-the-fact if the home-owner does not pay. That allows the fire department to cover its expenses, prevent moral hazard, and teach the non-subscriber a lesson about personal responsibility all at once, without resorting to roasting marshmallows over the guy's burning house (figuratively speaking). This works just like people paying out-of-pocket for health care. Given that a home-owning non-subscriber is a home-owner, they most likely have more than enough collateral to pay the full cost, even if they're broke...it's just gonna hurt a lot more than $75. ;)

So how many fires are there in this town per year? Two, three, maybe five. I can't even remember that last time I seen a house catch on fire in my town. Lets say there are five fires in this town per year and people only choose to pay upon necessity. How does the fire department stay in business when people only pay when their house is on fire? Even if they charged them $10,000 dollars they would still go out of business. You have to pay the salaries of multiple firefighters, trucks, equipment, building, as well as other firefighting expenses that I can't think of. $75 is not a large amount of money for a single family for this type of protection and when gathered from every family in town is probably enough to run a fire department. Your paying for the luxury of having someone risk their lives to save your stuff/memories. The house can be replaced and will be replaced if you have home owners insurance. Let's hope they didn't cheap out there, too.


If you don't pay for car insurance and you get in an accident, you lose...as in, you have to pay the full price of repairs. It doesn't mean car repair shops are going to refuse to repair your car altogether though (which is a much closer parallel to the fire department refusing to put out the fire). I mean, they should be allowed to, legally, but it's not the coolest thing to do, and it doesn't benefit anyone to do so.

Nobody is refusing to fix their house or rebuild them another one so I don't see where this applies. Also they had home owners insurance and their house will be replaced. Your example is closer to paying someone to step in front of you car with a giant airbag to stop damage to your vehicle right before an accident.


Anyway, your points pretty much sum up the one side of the argument, but I think there's a better middle road to take that both acknowledges personal responsibility and avoids unnecessary destruction.

I fail to see the "unnecessary destruction". It was necessary because it taught that family a basic lesson. Don't be a cheap ass and if you are then don't cry over your flame broiled stuff.

What if somebodies house in the town that actually pays taxes for this service caught on fire and burned to the ground because the service they pay for was off helping someone who decided to try and skate by?

[RedStripe]

http://funnyjunk.com/movies/50/

rofl

[phill4paul]

I am aware of your stance, but you seem to be taking time out of the equation. You said they should have helped him because it was shitty not to, even though you would defend their right not to. In lieu of this help you would have created a false story to veil the cover for the moral hazard you know would result.

Unfortunately for you the next day you get a similar call. Will you say it was a training exercise again? Would you say it shitty for not helping again? Or is it only a one-time deal?

No. I said that I would have chose to. Not that they should have.

As CIC if I deemed an event to be a training exercise then it is my responsibility. I would have no problems with that.

I would have made that specifically clear to the media as I have here.

Though I see the point in that individuals would probably read through the lines much as you have with my posts.

[Mini-Me]

Where do you get that? I saw an interview with the man, discouraged and disappointed, yes.
Smug? Not that I saw.
I don't mean after the fire took his house down. Obviously, he wasn't smug after the fact, but as angelatc said, he didn't just "forget" to pay; he simply bet the farm on the idea that everyone else would cover for him, and he wouldn't have to cover for anyone else. "Smug" is just my own assessment of that attitude.


Secondly, where does anyone get the idea that this is a business or that it is or ever has been self funded?
Where does anyone get the idea that the tax feeding bureaucrats that ordered any of this are either libertarian or Free market?

Ya'all are on some fantasy trip about what could or might be, but not on the reality of what is.
You very well may be right. This is why I've made a point to mention in all of my posts (I think all of them) that if the guy paid taxes, or if the fire department was a coercive monopoly, then they should have had an obligation to save his house.

In the absence of further evidence though, I think people in this thread are operating under the following two assumptions for the sake of conversation:
The guy lived in a rural area and did not pay taxes for the city's fire services (reasonably likely).
The fire department is not a coercive monopoly (unlikely, but assuming this keeps the thread from dying ;)).


Sucks that this guy lost his home and belongings, It sucks that those that were able to help didn't.
At least his insurance is paying off.
I definitely agree with you that the situation sucks though...especially for the insurance company and its other customers. ;) This actually makes me wonder how much political pressure the insurance company is going to start putting on the city/county/etc. now though...

[erowe1]

Some of the responses I'm reading here are amazing. Nobody has said anything about the firefighters who would be risking their lives to put out the fire. For free no less.

Are you sure it would be for free? Isn't Redstripe saying he'd pay for it all?

[phill4paul]

I'd have to go back a few post but I'll reiterate.

All those that think the department SHOULD have put the fire out will give ammunition to PRO government liberals and those that live in the rural area will be annexed and FORCED to pay city taxes for fire services even if they have no need or desire.

[DjLoTi]

The condescending tone in this thread towards the homeowner and the "fuck you, got mine" attitude is the exact sort of behavior which causes most human beings who live in the real world to regard 'libertarians' as anti-social sperglords whose theoretical fantasy world bears no relation to actual society. I mean, after all, before one can properly include various social norms and the nuances of community relations into one's philosophy, one actually has to reasonably aware of such concepts rather than a reclusive shut-in or immature privileged, teenager living in the suburbs.



I'm sorry, but I agree. People are so callous and like, 'oh well, he should have paid his fee' as his house burns down. I mean, come on. His house is burning down. Why not help him? Charge him later? Is that so bad?

Then hard-core libs freak out about 'well if everyone did it like that, they would be out of biz'. I mean come on. Is this world seriously about the buck? This is what turns people off to libertarianism. It seems like a cold, unsympathetic, unrealistic world.

To make matters worse, you guys aggressively defend your emotionally-frozen argument. There is just no winning with you guys.

[phill4paul]

I'm sorry, but I agree. People are so callous and like, 'oh well, he should have paid his fee' as his house burns down. I mean, come on. His house is burning down. Why not help him? Charge him later? Is that so bad?

Then hard-core libs freak out about 'well if everyone did it like that, they would be out of biz'. I mean come on. Is this world seriously about the buck? This is what turns people off to libertarianism. It seems like a cold, unsympathetic, unrealistic world.

To make matters worse, you guys aggressively defend your emotionally-frozen argument. There is just no winning with you guys.

You may as well be a liberal. Vote Democrat next time. If individuals are not held accountable for there own actions then government funded agencies should look out for them.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm sorry, but I agree. People are so callous and like, 'oh well, he should have paid his fee' as his house burns down. I mean, come on. His house is burning down. Why not help him? Charge him later? Is that so bad?

Then hard-core libs freak out about 'well if everyone did it like that, they would be out of biz'. I mean come on. Is this world seriously about the buck? This is what turns people off to libertarianism. It seems like a cold, unsympathetic, unrealistic world.

To make matters worse, you guys aggressively defend your emotionally-frozen argument. There is just no winning with you guys.

Yes. Everything we do has an opportunity cost. I acknowledge that by spending my time with leisure instead of work I will make less money than others. Time is money. Everything we do has an associated cost. This is how people make choices. It is also how the market operates efficiently. We can accurately state how much one action costs against another. Without this, you have what amounts to no value system whatsoever. How can you judge anything without a value system? That is the reality of the world. It is not callous. Why do people defend the guy who is SELFISH. * I don't understand :(

* Obligatory disclaimer: If the person has contributed in the form of taxation to this fire service, he should have received service. If he has not, he should not have. If he refused to pay he should not have received their services.

[Mini-Me]

So how many fires are there in this town per year? Two, three, maybe five. I can't even remember that last time I seen a house catch on fire in my town. Lets say there are five fires in this town per year and people only choose to pay upon necessity. How does the fire department stay in business when people only pay when their house is on fire? Even if they charged them $10,000 dollars they would still go out of business. You have to pay the salaries of multiple firefighters, trucks, equipment, building, as well as other firefighting expenses that I can't think of. $75 is not a large amount of money for a single family for this type of protection and when gathered from every family in town is probably enough to run a fire department. Your paying for the luxury of having someone risk their lives to save your stuff/memories. The house can be replaced and will be replaced if you have home owners insurance. Let's hope they didn't cheap out there, too.
I agree that pay-as-you-go isn't the best a priori business plan for the fire department. Moreover, it isn't the best business plan for customers, either! As you said, paying $75 up front is a much better deal. However, in the event of a fire at a non-subscriber's home, it benefits both the non-subscriber and the existing fire department to then charge full price plus profit. You might argue that this incentivizes people to just not pay the premium and hope for the best, but most people would still rather pay the small premium than pay an exorbitant cost in the event of a fire.

Still, let's examine the unrealistic worst case scenario: The fire department makes a habit of letting non-subscribers people pay full price (several thousand dollars), and so a lot of people foolishly decide to gamble and stop paying premiums. If the fire department starts getting into trouble, they still have two options:
Make the cost of "full price" much higher, since there are very few fires each year.
Eventually announce they're returning to a premium-up-front-only business model.

As it stands, offering to save this guy's house for full price - after it was already on fire - would have been more beneficial to both the guy and the fire department.


Nobody is refusing to fix their house or rebuild them another one so I don't see where this applies.
My point was that the fire department refused service, rather than simply charging full price. This made your car insurance analogy invalid, because nobody refuses service if you're uninsured; they simply make you pay the full price of repairs. Saying that nobody is refusing to repair or rebuild the house is taking the better [but still imperfect] analogy too literally and missing the point.


Also they had home owners insurance and their house will be replaced. Your example is closer to paying someone to step in front of you car with a giant airbag to stop damage to your vehicle right before an accident.
If such services were customary, sane, or even remotely possible for non-subscribers or subscribers or anyone whatsoever, then yes, I agree that my example would be closer to that. ;)


I fail to see the "unnecessary destruction". It was necessary because it taught that family a basic lesson. Don't be a cheap ass and if you are then don't cry over your flame broiled stuff.
I say it was "unnecessary," because it was NOT necessary to teach the family a basic lesson, and it was NOT necessary to prevent moral hazard, and it was NOT necessary to cover the fire department's costs. It was perhaps sufficient to accomplish the first two, but it was not necessary. Furthermore, it was an extremely poor option for covering costs, especially considering the equipment and firefighters were already on the scene.

Charging for the full multi-thousand-dollar cost of rescue (including equipment payments) plus profit would also have been sufficient to accomplish all of those ends, and it would have done so in a much more mutually beneficial way...which means the way they did it was not the only option [or even the best option]. The presence of satisfactory alternatives makes the "let it burn" option unnecessary. Because this unnecessary option was also far more destructive than the satisfactory (better) alternatives, I think it's reasonable to juxtapose the "unnecessary" and "destructive" aspects and call the whole thing "unnecessarily destructive." ;)


What if somebodies house in the town that actually pays taxes for this service caught on fire and burned to the ground because the service they pay for was off helping someone who decided to try and skate by?
If the man decided to pay full price, he would have become a paying customer at that moment, and his extraordinarily higher cost of service would have justified putting him on equal terms with the regular subscribers who paid less. Plus, the firefighters were already there anyway, so citing opportunity cost is largely irrelevant in this case. In any case, if the fire department fails to protect a subscriber, they should be held liable regardless of WHY they failed or whom else they were serving at the time. However, this particular scenario is quite unlikely, since - as you argued earlier - they probably don't see many more than a handful of fires each year. ;)

[DjLoTi]

You may as well be a liberal. Vote Democrat next time. If individuals are not held accountable for there own actions then government funded agencies should look out for them.

Point made. I have a different opinion, you call me a liberal. Try to look at the world through a more normal lens, not one with such defining political lines.



Yes. Everything we do has an opportunity cost. I acknowledge that by spending my time with leisure instead of work I will make less money than others. Time is money. Everything we do has an associated cost. This is how people make choices. It is also how the market operates efficiently. We can accurately state how much one action costs against another. Without this, you have what amounts to no value system whatsoever. How can you judge anything without a value system? That is the reality of the world. It is not callous. Why do people defend the guy who is SELFISH. I don't understand :(

I mean, he said he would pay w/e if they would help him. Surely they could have charged something like a $450 fee which is like 5 years worth of annual fees. I mean, the guys house burned down. I think it would have been somewhat humane to at least help the guy a LITTLE bit...

[RedStripe]

You may as well be a liberal. Vote Democrat next time. If individuals are not held accountable for there own actions then government funded agencies should look out for them.

Babies that wander onto railroad tracks should be accountable for their own actions.

If you dare suggest that a passerby has some moral responsibility for helping out a fellow human being, you are literally Stalin. Literally. And a Democrat. Because you are a socialist. Think about it. That passerby has an opportunity cost that he is expending in the 20 seconds it would take him to save the life of another human being - my economics graph proves it! He could be MAKING MONEY during that same 20 seconds!

[erowe1]

Babies that wander onto railroad tracks should be accountable for their own actions.

If you dare suggest that a passerby has some moral responsibility for helping out a fellow human being, you are literally Stalin. Literally. And a Democrat. Because you are a socialist.

But you agree that a person has no such moral responsibility. Don't you?

I mean, if you believe that there is no such thing as "moral responsibilty" at all in the abstract (which you have indicated here before), then doesn't it necessarily follow that there are no specific instances of any moral responsibilities?

I've been confused by your position throughout this thread. At times it has appeared that you did not believe there was any question of actual right and wrong involved here, such as when you painted it as a matter of why normal people in the real world reject libertarianism, and the problem of the vulgar libertarians is one of their choosing a position that is not appealing to most people, thus being a weakness on merely utilitarian grounds, which would be consistent with previous claims you've made on the forum to the effect that there is no such thing as absolute morality or natural rights.

But at other times you betray your true belief (the one you have deep down, though labor at times to deny it), which is that there actually is such thing as absolute right and wrong that is determined by a law that transcends simple human preferences and societal norms, such as when you say that the firemen were "shitty," "pathetic," and "deserved" the scorn they were receiving, and when you imply that people do have a moral responsibility to rescue a baby on train tracks.

But even given that absolute morality does exist (and now would be as good a time as any to stop pretending otherwise), what exactly is the rule here that the fire station ought to follow?

Should they adopt a rule that they will serve all clients without respect to their paying for the service? Or should they adopt a rule that says they should only serve those who subscribe to their service? And if they should adopt such a rule, should they follow it or not? If they shouldn't have such a rule, or should have such a rule but shouldn't follow it, then where should the money come from to serve the people who don't subscribe to their service? And should there be any limits placed on which nonsubscribers they should serve? Should they only serve the ones who are close, or are they also morally obligated to serve those in the next town over? What about hundreds of miles away? And of the 6 billion people in the world who did not help to put out this family's fire, which of them besides these fire fighters committed something morally wrong? Or was it only these fire fighters who were in the wrong and not any of the rest of us?

[phill4paul]

Point made. I have a different opinion, you call me a liberal. Try to look at the world through a more normal lens, not one with such defining political lines.

Take your own rose colored glasses off and see the world as it truly is. My opinion is not far from yours on the moral perspective. However, you would foist your moral beliefs on the Fire Dept. were as I will not. There is a difference between individual beliefs and societal beliefs. This is a prime example. One best learned if they wish to support the belief of personal accountability.


I mean, he said he would pay w/e if they would help him. Surely they could have charged something like a $450 fee which is like 5 years worth of annual fees. I mean, the guys house burned down. I think it would have been somewhat humane to at least help the guy a LITTLE bit...

This individual could not even be bothered for $75 dollars a year.

That's .20 cents a day. :rolleyes:

Would you trust someone to pay a larger fee for immediate relief that cannot even afford that. The government shouldn't if they were required by tax paying citizens to balance their budget.

[Mini-Me]

This individual could not even be bothered for $75 dollars a year.

That's .20 cents a day. :rolleyes:

Would you trust someone to pay a larger fee for immediate relief that cannot even afford that. The government shouldn't if they were required by tax paying citizens to balance their budget.

I think it's unlikely that the guy couldn't afford the $75...it's more likely that he simply refused to pay. If the guy agrees to the full rescue price (much, much higher than $450, too) in the event of an emergency and refuses to pay again after the fact, that's what lawsuits are for. Considering he's a home-owner who wanted his house to be saved from fire [from a company he didn't subscribe to, no less], he inherently has something to lose. This means he naturally has something of value to cough up if he decides to stiff the department for their emergency services.

In the case that he was already struggling and genuinely couldn't afford the $75 in the first place, then we couldn't continue to view him as an asshole who deserves a harsh lesson anyway. Instead, we'd have no choice but to consider him a poor sympathetic soul who needs a helping hand. Considering the firefighters were already on the scene, there's really little reason besides spite not to give such a person a helping hand anyway.* Of course, there's no way to tell if he's a smug freeloader or a genuinely struggling person in the heat of the moment, but it doesn't really matter, since he has collateral in either case, and saving the house is the best option regardless.

* If need be, this is where the "These are unique circumstances," press release might come in. It's also worth mentioning that both sides of this argument have a point on how people make decisions: If it seems as though non-subscribers will get freebies, that will inevitably encourage moral hazard and freeloading and ultimately result in either higher rates or bankruptcy. However, if it seems that most non-subscribers will get nailed with a several thousand dollar bill if they try to leech, whereas the truly needy and unlucky might get a charitable pass on the bill at the discretion of the fire department, that's a different situation: It will still put fear in the hearts of would-be-moochers, but it will also engender good will with people who might like to consider their premium to be part business, part charity.

[phill4paul]

Babies that wander onto railroad tracks should be accountable for their own actions.

If you dare suggest that a passerby has some moral responsibility for helping out a fellow human being, you are literally Stalin. Literally. And a Democrat. Because you are a socialist. Think about it. That passerby has an opportunity cost that he is expending in the 20 seconds it would take him to save the life of another human being - my economics graph proves it! He could be MAKING MONEY during that same 20 seconds!

Your just being an idiot about this baby on the railroad tracks nonsense. Get over it. You're not making a relevant point. You've brought this up before and it was rightfully ignored.

[phill4paul]

If the guy won't pay the full price after agreeing (much, much higher than $450, too), that's what lawsuits are for. Considering he's a home-owner who wanted his house to be saved from fire, he obviously has something of value to cough up if he decides to stiff the department for their emergency services.

Yeah. So the city gets a half burnt property in return for an unpaid verbal contract.

Pay the goddamn .20 cents a day or STFU and provide for yourself.

Ok lets take it in this direction.....

The city provides no fire protection to the rural county. None. Period. If you don't live in the city you fend for yourself. No fees. You just don't get support.

So now is the city responsible for not responding?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If you try to start up your own competing fire service the guns will knock down your door quicker than you can print the first flyer.

[akforme]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_agHXcORx9eY/SbV5_2xNLMI/AAAAAAAABs4/PelLTSdpLa8/s400/firefighters.jpg

[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, but have the capability of paying the extra money should there be a fire. 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. The interesting part is we live less than one mile inside the Knox County line so we are stuck with Rural Metro or nothing. If we lived one mile the other direction we could have the Kodak Volunteer Fire Department serve the fire fighting of our house. They are located about 1.5 miles away and good people. We have donated to them even though they don't service our area. They can't help us - we are stuck with choosing Rural Metro and their stations are more than 15 miles away!

From the Rural Metro 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 and I'm not opposed to it. I just think it is ridiculous that there is a fire station 1.5 miles away and they can't help us because we are just inside Knox County, but we are stuck with a company that is about 15 miles away. Our house would be long gone possibly by the time Rural Metro could get there, but could be saved with the Volunteer Department.

[phill4paul]

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, but have the capability of paying the extra money should there be a fire. 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. The interesting part is we live less than one mile inside the Knox County line so we are stuck with Rural Metro or nothing. If we lived one mile the other direction we could have the Kodak Volunteer Fire Department serve the fire fighting of our house. They are located about 1.5 miles away and good people. We have donated to them even though they don't service our area. They can't help us - we are stuck with choosing Rural Metro and their stations are more than 15 miles away!

From the Rural Metro website.



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

Interesting concept really and I'm not opposed to it. I just think it is ridiculous that there is a fire station 1.5 miles away and they can't help us because we are just inside Knox County, but we are stuck with a company that is about 15 miles away. Our house would be long gone possibly by the time Rural Metro could get there, but could be saved with the Volunteer Department.

What would happen if you contracted them to do a live fire burn training exercise on your property at a date of your choosing?

[phill4paul]

///

[Mini-Me]

Yeah. So the city gets a half burnt property in return for an unpaid verbal contract.
If a homeowner wants a half-burnt property to be saved, it must necessarily have SOMETHING of value that a fully-burnt property does not, no?


Pay the goddamn .20 cents a day or STFU and provide for yourself.

Ok lets take it in this direction.....

The city provides no fire protection to the rural county. None. Period. If you don't live in the city you fend for yourself. No fees. You just don't get support.

So now is the city responsible for not responding?

Of course not. Assuming the rural county isn't paying taxes for the fire department (reasonable assumption), and assuming the fire department is not a coercive government monopoly (extremely unlikely assumption that I'll let slide*), I never even said the fire department is responsible for saving the guy's house anyway. That doesn't mean doing so wouldn't have been a financially beneficial (and less dickish) move for everyone involved though, because it would have been...especially given the firefighters and equipment already on the scene.

*As Live_Free_Or_Die said:

If you try to start up your own competing fire service the guns will knock down your door quicker than you can print the first flyer.

[Catatonic]

What would Jesus do?

"Heh, fuck you losers who lost on your gamble" *smokes cigarette*

This is why libertarians are perceived as completely out of touch with reality. In reality, it's just absolutely shitty and pathetic to do NOTHING to help your neighbor - yes, the real world of actual relationships with you community; a world that I sometimes question whether or not some of you actually live in.

I wouldn't risk my life for my neighbor, especially for free. How can I expect anyone else to?

Sacrifice should be applauded, not mandated.

[GunnyFreedom]

As soon as the homeowner gave his consent to pay the costs, they should have gotten to work and sent him the bill, with the understanding that "we are starting a little late so wish us luck."

[malkusm]

Was this a lesson in personal responsibility? Well, who knows....but I'm willing to bet that more than one family in that town just turned in a belated $75 to the fire department today.

[angelatc]

As soon as the homeowner gave his consent to pay the costs, they should have gotten to work and sent him the bill, with the understanding that "we are starting a little late so wish us luck."

From a legal perspective, that's pretty shaky ground. The 911 operator probably isn't authorized to enter into contractual obligations on behalf of the fire department.

[GunnyFreedom]

From a legal perspective, that's pretty shaky ground. The 911 operator probably isn't authorized to enter into contractual obligations on behalf of the fire department.

I thought he was giving his consent directly to the fire team, sorry. :)

[angelatc]

Was this a lesson in personal responsibility? Well, who knows....but I'm willing to bet that more than one family in that town just turned in a belated $75 to the fire department today.

Speaking of personal responsibility, he started the fire himself, burning debris in the back yard.

I'll bet his insurance policy is going to be canceled ASAP.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Speaking of personal responsibility, he started the fire himself, burning debris in the back yard.

I'll bet his insurance policy is going to be canceled ASAP.

Damn, how did I miss that tiny detail. I need to rework this then and throw it back at Red...


"If you rescued babies from the train track every time they crawl on to them, the parents would have less incentive to watch out for their kids!"

---Retarded Libertarians, 2010

"If you rescued babies from the train track every time parents place a baby near one to play without paying for a baby sitter, the parents have every right to call you an asshole for not rescuing their baby when it gets hit by a train!"

---Retarded Leftists, 2010

[Sentient Void]

This is a massive *government fail*, not a 'market fail', contrary to what the talking heads (Keith Olbermann, et al), pundits, and liberal bloggers spreading it as such on the internet want people to believe.

This Orwellian doublethink mentality is getting very irritating. Now they're trying to say the failure of government is a failure of the market. These fools need to inform themselves and stop spreading blatant misinformation.

http://blog.mises.org/14158/did-the-free-market-burn-down-the-house/


A strange argument emerged overnight that illustrates how little even informed people understand about the market economy and its implications. This time the debate centers on a interesting case of a man in rural Tennessee who did not pay his fire-services fee, so the fire department let his house burn down. Here is the news report.

You can see that this incident is being used to attack libertarianism.

YouTube - Keith Olbermann Interviews Man Whose House Burned as Fire Department Watched (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRaskxVjkXc&feature=player_embedded)

National Review’s Daniel Foster jumps in to say that this is why conservatives need to curb their enthusiasm for the market economy. A colleague in the “anarcho-capitalist” camp stuck his head into Daniel’s office to explain that fire protection is not a human right, so it makes sense that the house was allowed to burn. Paul Krugman (he never goes away) adds that this is a case against the market in general. “Do you want to live in the kind of society in which this happens?”

I don’t get this debate at all. It is not even a real debate. The fire-protection services were *government services*. The fee in question was a *government-mandated fee*. The county lines in which the fee was applicable is a *government-drawn line* that is completely arbitrary. The policy of not putting out the fire was a *government policy* enforced by the mayor. As he said, in the words of a good bureaucrat, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t.”

[XNavyNuke]

And is it any wonder that commercial media is losing it to the blogosphere? The mouthpieces have their agenda and have no interest in background. It's much more fun to watch both side be whipped into a frenzy with half truths, knowing full well that otherwise intelligent individuals will go off on an issue with only the data they have been spoon-fed.

Letting Homes Burn In Tennessee – An Ongoing Problem. (http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/letting-homes-burn-in-tennessee-an-ongoing-problem/)

So, basically, it looks like the FD has funding other than the "fee" such as doled-out confiscated FRNs in the form of federal, state, and county taxes. The FD appears to be running the public school scam where they acquire additional padding through service fees.

Looks like county government hikes taxes in excess of the amount purported to address the rural fire service funding but it apparently gets misdirected into a different coffer.

The fee is a product of municipal ordinance, and since the affected are rural and don't have a vote in city elections, they're SOL.

You know what, instead of pointing out this malfeasance let's just drag the old white male trailer trash Tennessee hillrod and put him under the national spotlight. Everything will feel better and the issue will go away again. It did in 2008.

XNN