House in Tennessee Burns Down, Firefighters Let it Burn

[Vyacheslav]

http://tinyurl.com/326ajoh

I know, it's a Yahoo article... kill me. But really, just because someone doesn't pay $75 means that his house which may have $750,000 worth of property (just throwing that number out there) means that firefighters can just watch it burn? This is absolutely insane. My, it's just like the fire department requires you to pay an annual (small amount, but still) tax. I think that's unethical. Fires are a serious, life-threatening emergency. What if people were in the house? Would they just let them burn alive? Christ, man.

[Tanner]

I'm sure exactly what would happen if there was someone in immediate mortal danger but given that they did arrive at the scene in a timely fashion despite, I'm sure, knowing that this guy wasn't covered under their rural firefighting fee, they likely had some intent of bringing their expertise and equipment to bear should it be life and death or be a danger to others who had paid the fee. A redditor said it much better than I can:

Situation: Republican county decided not to establish a county wide fire department. The only way for rural residents to get fire protection is to subscribe to a fire service - from the article it is unclear whether this was provided from a nearby city or a private fire department. For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that it was a nearby city's fire department.
Example time:
From the fire chief's perspective, he now has tax dollars from the city funding his department, and subscription fees from rural residents. If he needs to have at least 1 fire truck and 4 firemen per 1000 homes, his city has 1500 homes, and 1500 rural subscribers, he will have 12 firemen and 3 fire trucks. He's not going to buy an extra fire truck and hire 4 more firemen to protect the 500 rural residents that didn't subscribe. The only way he could afford that would be to overcharge his city and his subscribers.
Now, rural non-subscriber's house is on fire, and the fire chief is in a moral hazard. Does he:
A. Send the firefighters out to fight the fire for free
B. Send the firefighters out to fight the fire for $75
C. Send the firefighters out to fight the fire for the cost of expenses and penalties (say $7500)
D. Send the firefighters out to ensure that everyone is safe, but let the house burn unless it's threatening to spread.
All 4 of those choices have a looser. In A, B, and C, the owner is receiving a service he didn't pay for, making him a freeloader off of his neighbors. In situation A or B, the rational rural homeowner would say - hmm, why am I paying $75 every year, when Bob down the street got fire service when he needed it without paying? In situation C, you again are getting service, but on a pay-as-you-go situation. While for the short term situation, this makes sense that the homeowner has to pay for services rendered if he's not a member, more rural homeowners might say that they are willing to take the risk of paying a penalty in exchange for fire service then to pay it each year. This was the situation I was talking about in my post above. The fire chief can't afford an extra fire truck and 4 more firemen purely on the hope that there will be at least 100 house fires in non-subscriber's houses every year, and even if he decided to chance it, who pays the price if there were only 50 non-subscriber's house fires?
Finally, situation D. Let it burn. Yes, it's awful that the guy lost his house. However, in this situation, the person who chose not to subscribe to the service is the one who pays the "price" of his action. I'll bet you anything that after this event, everyone in the county will be paid in full and/or pass a county tax to provide fire service to everyone.

Funnily enough, I was listening to a short audio clip earlier tonight of Robert Anton Wilson explaining his interpretation of libertarianism and he mentioned that though he would not have a problem paying money to fund a local police for the area where he lives, should it be necessary, of course, he did not want to pay taxes that the government could use to fund the construction of nuclear weapons. It's not feasible, currently, to have this system where I live because I live in the third largest city in North America but I would love have it if I lived in a rural area.

[scythe]

I thought the policy was that they put it out and then send the guy a bill. Seems fairer that way.

[Tanner]

I thought the policy was that they put it out and then send the guy a bill. Seems fairer that way.

Kinder, yes. Fairer, I don't think so.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

My initial reaction is revulsion, but upon further consideration, I agree that letting it burn was the most rational thing to do. Assuming this homeowner made the decision to not pay for the firefighting service knowing full well what the consequences might be, he deserves everything that comes to him.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I think they should have gone with the Redditor's option C.
This is little different from a typical insurance case: you can either pay some smaller amount regularly to protect yourself against catastrophic consequences, or you can risk it and deal with the catastrophic consequences if they come. This guy chose to deal.

[SlappyMcGee]

I've often argued with Sabrina that the latter part of Tanner's post re: paying for a police force directly is a viable option in a libertarian society, specifically when it comes to building roads and telephone wires.

[capt_weasle]

From the Gizmodo article, it appears that the homeowners were willing to pay whatever it took to save the house. I think that here you could charge a ton of fees for people who don't subscribe to the service. The only problem with that is when you start to offer the firefighting services on either an annual fee, or a per-incident fine (which would be substantially larger) is that if you get more than half of the rural county not subscribing to the service, you can't predict what you need to have (as in trucks and firemen) in order to have the county protected in a given year. It's easier to just have a subscription fee so you know who is covered and what you need to cover them. Although two interesting things to note here:

1) The firefighters originally ignored the homeowners calls for help. They only arrived at the scene when the fire spread to their neighbors house. I think that was a poor decision on behalf of South Fulton (the neighboring city that provides the service), because when you have an uncontrolled fire it's not going to remain in one area for long. They should have been dispatched just to ensure everyone's safety.

2) After everything was said and done, Paulette Cranick (homeowner), responded with, "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault." I think most people would have been a lot angrier given the situation.

[smartalco]

1) The firefighters originally ignored the homeowners calls for help. They only arrived at the scene when the fire spread to their neighbors house. I think that was a poor decision on behalf of South Fulton (the neighboring city that provides the service), because when you have an uncontrolled fire it's not going to remain in one area for long. They should have been dispatched just to ensure everyone's safety.

From what I read (which was neither of the above linked articles), the firefighters did respond immediately, but then sat around and watched the house burn until the fire spread to neighbors.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

"They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

The Nuremberg Defense

[otters~1]

2) After everything was said and done, Paulette Cranick (homeowner), responded with, "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault." I think most people would have been a lot angrier given the situation.

This is the strangest part of the entire incident. Not kidding.

[Rose]

I think they should have gone with the Redditor's option C.
This is little different from a typical insurance case: you can either pay some smaller amount regularly to protect yourself against catastrophic consequences, or you can risk it and deal with the catastrophic consequences if they come. This guy chose to deal.

This.

[blackson]

I think they should have saved the house and sold its contents for themselves.

[Kablizzy]

I find this entire line of thinking *insane*, and as a /human fucking being/, can't fathom the firefighters not doing anything. Ambulances send you bills for their service, and you can't refuse them, so this should be no different. Capitalism has ruined *everything*.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

I think they should have gone with the Redditor's option C.
This is little different from a typical insurance case: you can either pay some smaller amount regularly to protect yourself against catastrophic consequences, or you can risk it and deal with the catastrophic consequences if they come. This guy chose to deal.

But to quote the redditor whom Tanner quoted: "the fire chief can't afford an extra fire truck and 4 more firemen purely on the hope that there will be at least 100 house fires in non-subscriber's houses every year, and even if he decided to chance it, who pays the price if there were only 50 non-subscriber's house fires?"

If you allowed people to take this way out, the system would break down and no-one would be able to get firefighting coverage.

[Vyacheslav]

If they really need the $75 so bad, they should just slap it on the town's tax instead of having a separate bill.

[SlappyMcGee]

I think they should have gone with the Redditor's option C.
This is little different from a typical insurance case: you can either pay some smaller amount regularly to protect yourself against catastrophic consequences, or you can risk it and deal with the catastrophic consequences if they come. This guy chose to deal.

But to quote the redditor whom Tanner quoted: "the fire chief can't afford an extra fire truck and 4 more firemen purely on the hope that there will be at least 100 house fires in non-subscriber's houses every year, and even if he decided to chance it, who pays the price if there were only 50 non-subscriber's house fires?"

If you allowed people to take this way out, the system would break down and no-one would be able to get firefighting coverage.

Well, that's most people's fault for living in rural ass areas. If you aren't willing to pony up the cash it would cost to insure you; and I'm not talking paying a fee along with your neighbors, but the actual cost yourself; then you made a mistake at some point in your priorities.

[Heartattack]

2) After everything was said and done, Paulette Cranick (homeowner), responded with, "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault." I think most people would have been a lot angrier given the situation.

This is the strangest part of the entire incident. Not kidding.

Perhaps this is because the guy had super awesome fire insurance. This would explain his calm nature while his house was burning down AND why he didn't pay the fee in the first place.

[otters]

My question is why option "C" wasn't a viable option, even if the cost of the fine far outweighs the cost of the subscription going for the rest of your life.

[Tanner]

My question is why option "C" wasn't a viable option, even if the cost of the fine far outweighs the cost of the subscription going for the rest of your life.

Been asked and answered several times in this thread. Essentially, because the fire chief can no longer predict how much coverage he will need or be able to afford, it, ahem, cripples the ability of his department to handle fires on a whole. It can still work as a system but it's considerably less efficient than the alternative.

[otters]

My question is why option "C" wasn't a viable option, even if the cost of the fine far outweighs the cost of the subscription going for the rest of your life.

Been asked and answered several times in this thread.

Haha, whoops. Maybe I should read actually read the shit I'm replying to.

[otters~1]

My question is why option "C" wasn't a viable option, even if the cost of the fine far outweighs the cost of the subscription going for the rest of your life.

Been asked and answered several times in this thread.

Haha, whoops. Maybe I should read actually read the shit I'm replying to.

You could also try reading your posts after you submit them. :P

[otters]

Been asked and answered several times in this thread.

Haha, whoops. Maybe I should read actually read the shit I'm replying to.

You could also try reading your posts after you submit them. :P

I do that at least six times. It made sense at first.

[Tanner]

This is sort of off-topic but I just thought that this video presents another interesting argument for the abolition/privatization of what many view as necessary government systems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

This is sort of off-topic but I just thought that this video presents another interesting argument for the abolition/privatization of what many view as necessary government systems.

Makes you think.