Libertarian fire dept. lets another home burn

Post Reply New Topic

Some people certainly love to beat a dead horse. I feel we got a couple people that are responding to the thread title and haven't read the first 6 pages.

You haven't the slightest clue about libertarianism and that's sad. Selfish? How dare you, how dare you. I make barley enough money to get by, yet I still donate money to charity above and beyond my taxes.

Selfish? I spend my evenings training to serve the community as a first responder, without being paid for it.

But I guess that's all selfish because I"m a selfish libertarian.

You don't understand the world. This person was plainly told that he had to pay a fee for fire service. He knowingly decided, of his own free will, to decline to pay it. He knew what would happen.

If the fire fighters had saved his house, what motive would anyone have to pay the tax? They would just wait until it happened. Then guess what, the fire department can't survive. Do you know how much that stuff costs? 1 pair of turnouts costs over 1500 dollars. A single breathing system, 5,000 dollars. Turnouts wear out over time. Engines, hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If no one pays the tax because they know they can just pay up when it happens, the fire department can't survive. Then they send a firefighter in and his turnout coats fails because they don't have money to replace it, and someone's life is lost or damaged forever. Self Contained Breathing System failure? You have a minute or two to get out of the fire before the smoke and CO2 get you.

I'm sorry I don't consider willingly deciding not to pay for fire protection for your most valuable asset a "small mistake."

But I guess you'd rather the fire fighters save his house, then no one else pays, then a firefighter dies due to lack of proper gear?

Wait, so you're saying that if the liberals in this thread had their way, there wouldn't be any fire station at all for anyone? Seems kinda myopic on their part, wouldn't you say?

Then again, we are talking about people who are statistically unlikely to even be able to understand differing points of view.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/10/born-this-way/2

I'm not a liberal, but I'd guess if they had their way the fire service would be properly funded through general taxation and would have a remit to cover all necessity in a given area.

Though speaking as someone on the left, I very much understand differing points of view. I just disagree with them.

Last edited by Hopper on 17 Sep 2012, 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

There are other ways to punish free rider behaviours(for example a Fine) than" let's the home burn to the ground"

Suing the recalcitrant homeowners for the entire cost of the extinguishing operation would be just. That will teach them to pay their premiums without endangering lives.

In any case, first must be extinguished, since public safety is the primary concern.

ruveyn

Not at all. In many places, fire services are covered by your main property and income taxes so there is no issue because those taxes are not voluntary and thus you can not avoid paying them without legal penalties. In this instance, fire protection was an additional fee that was optional. He, of his own free will, chose not to pay it. It's not really an issue of being properly funded, the fire tax properly funds the department, just people have the option to pay or not to pay. Most smart people choose to pay. It's different then a big city, but it works for them. I don't think we need to change a whole system for one idiot.



Public safety was never in danger. The firefighters will still perform search and rescue in the house if needed, and will protect neighboring property from the fire spreading.

Sueing them doesn't mean they'll get the money. Plus again, what if no houses burn down for the next 6 years?

It's a simple system. You pay for protection or you don't.

How is refusing to pay for fire insurance a small mistake or the result of bad luck? And if I suddenly change my attitude about privatizing a certain service because I'm suffering from the consequences of my own bad choices, it doesn't necessarily mean I changed it out of empathy. It could easily mean I changed it out of self-interest to cover my own ass from further consequences which would still make me selfish.

They gambled and they lost. That's plain stupidity. You can't safely gamble at high stakes, period.

So it was really worth allowing his wife and kids to lose everything, including pets, just to teach him a "lesson in responsibility".


Easy solution, fine him the approximate cost of putting out the fire. If it comes to it he may have to sell his property and move into a trailer. Still a way more just solution than "let'r burn!".


If it was known there were people in the house they might have gone in anyways. The decision should be based on a risk-analysis, not whether someone remembered to pay a fee. In this case the fire-fighters were going to try and put out the fire but were given a command not to. They were already at the scene.


In this particular case it apparently was apparently a willful choice and I don't have as much sympathy than if it were truly a mistake. However, if it was a mistake the outcome would be the same and would likewise be justified in your mind. Hey, he didn't pay did he! That's my problem with your moral reasoning. Even good people occasionally forget to pay bills. It's impossible to separate the people who made a mistake from the "free-loaders" because a smarter "free-loader" will claim forgetfulness. Punishing both categories equally is unjust. The obvious solution is either make the service a mandatory tax or fine those who require service but didn't pay.

In this case it appears it was a choice. In other cases it might not be so clear. My problem is with the policy in general, not the specific anecdotes. Libertarians regularly apply these same "personal responsibility" arguments to cases where simple mistakes and/or bad luck are a big factor. I see it all the time.

Yea, look at all those liberal countries who have no fire stations at all. I can understand a viewpoint and still find it morally repugnant. I'm through with apologizing.

Show, don't tell. Saying you understand while beating on a strawman libertarian shows something, but your personal grasp of libertarianism isn't it.
e.g. letting the man's home burn was about protecting the system, not "teaching him a lesson".

Aren't you normally for that sorta thing?

Actually, it was about BOTH. Taxes pay for civilization, and it was asinine to make the $75 emergency service tax voluntary! It should be required to prevent situations like this from occurring in the first place. If the law didn't protect people from themselves and relied on the honor system of "personal responsibility", civilization would fall apart. Libertarians are idealistic imbeciles who are completely out of touch with the reality of human behavior.


I can see a lawsuit on the horizon.....

^

Hmm, I just got called an imbecile by Mr Corrective Assrape; I feel like I just got spell checked by Dan Quayle (or fact checked by Paul Ryan, to be current).

Still no understanding of libertarianism, either.

First of all, I made a snide remark about libertarians but did NOT refer to you personally as an imbecile. In any case, I think you need to fill out one of these.

That isn't a solution.

If people know they can pay the tax afterwards, even if it's like 6x the price, how many will take the risk and thus put the fire department in danger.

Aspierouge, I don't see a lawsuit. Everything was done on the level. They like to live that way. If you don't, there's a simple solution, don't move there.