Libertarian fire dept. lets another home burn

Post Reply New Topic

I already pointed out there are better ways to "protect the system" than letting houses burn. I also get that libertarianism is about "freedom". I don't think the libertarian version of "freedom" is worth the damage it causes in practice.

Also, what makes you think I'm normally for "protecting the system"?

Last edited by marshall on 17 Sep 2012, 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you make the charge high enough it will pay for the service. Also, the fire department wasn't going to go broke because it was funded by tax payers in a nearby town. The locations where coverage was "optional" were simply outside the fire department's normal jurisdiction. It wasn't as if paying was optional for the entire region.

What you are missing is that the home in question was not within the jurisdiction of the nearby town with the fire department. The fire department was for a nearby town, not the entire county. While the town has no duty whatsoever to provide fire service outside of their jurisdiction, as a courtesy and to help raise money to maintain the fire department, they offered service outside of their jurisdiction on a fee basis. I'd say that is pretty commendable of them.

There is absolutely nothing that the city could ever do to require those living outside of their jurisdiction to pay a tax to operate their fire department. Nothing.

There are a couple of possibilities. The county could probably create their own fire department to respond to fires that are outside of the jurisdictions of the cities in the county. One problem could arise because of the size of the county the distance to many houses in the county from a county fire station could be considerably further than to the nearest city or town in the county.

Or they might be able to create a deal with the cities to provide service out in the country side and tax the people living in the country side to pay for that service. The city cannot tax outside of their jurisdiction, but if they are in the jurisdiction of the county government, then the county sure could do so.



Wouldn't the imbeciles be those who think that this situation is somehow Libertarian? It is not Libertarian. There is NO suggestion that the people involved in the situation are in any way Libertarian. I would bet that if any are Libertarians among those involved, either as homeowners or as firefighters, it is a mighty small number.

To sum it up, there is NO connection between this situation and Libertarianism.

Last edited by eric76 on 18 Sep 2012, 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is nothing Libertarian about this situation. Using it to denigrate Libertarianism and Libertarians is seriously ridiculous.

If anything, the argument that we should permit jurisdictions to impose taxes on people who live outside of that jurisdiction is one of totalitarianism. If the argument was somehow valid, then the United States government could impose taxes on citizens of Canada and Mexico who have never been to the United States and who have no desire to visit the United States.

It's not about imposing taxes. It's about insuring that house fires aren't allowed to run rampant and turn into out of control wildfires that consume entire towns. It wasn't as if these people lived in a cabin in the middle of the wilderness where it would be hard for a fire truck to even get to. Not having fire protection is a huge hazard. You're not just threatening your town but neighboring towns as well. I suppose making people do anything they don't want to do is totalitarian to you.

It would be if they were forced to pay taxes for services to a jurisdiction outside of their own.

The people in this case did not live within the city and the city had no taxing jurisdiction whatsoever over them. There is nothing legal that would permit that city to tax them for services. The city did what they could legally do -- they offer the the homeowners outside of their jurisdiction a service and let them decide whether or not to pay for it.

The city, if they wished, could probably fight the fire anyway, but that might lead to major problems with their insurance coverage. If a firefighter was injured or a firetruck destroyed while fighting a fire outside of the jurisdiction and with no agreement to pay for the service, it is quite possible that the city's insurance could legally refuse to pay anything on the injury or the equipment if the insurance policy limits firefighting to only fires in the jurisdiction or for which the city is being paid to fight.

Keep in mind that in fighting fires, it's not all that unusual for one or more firefighters to be transported to the hospital for burns, smoke inhalation, or other injuries incurred at the fire. If you were a firefighter in that city and if the insurance didn't cover injuries received outside of the jurisdiction, would you be happy to take on the costs of dealing with those injuries for yourself?

This is ridiculous. There are certain services that must be provided for "free" (paid for by taxes) if you want to have a civilized society. What next? Not let people call the police if they haven't paid? Not let kids go to school if the parents don't pay for it? I would have loved that one. I hated school and we wouldn't have been able to afford it so I wouldn't have to go.

I think socialized medicine is good too. If I couldn't have gotten Medicaid which I recently did I'd have no access to health care.

I would assume that the county or an unincorporated area in a county in many states could vote to create a jurisdiction to operate their own fire department and impose a tax on the property owners within that jurisdiction to pay for it, but there is certainly no requirement that they do so. It would likely be pretty expensive per property owner to maintain a fire department.

They could also probably vote to create a jurisdiction and impose taxes to pay the local city for that service. But in that case, why not just let the individual property owners decide whether or not to pay the local city for that service directly?

That is the key. There are many rural areas in America where the population density is to small to support a fire service. That is the case here. The taxes would have to be raised substantially to support a fire service. The 75 dollar fee is actually a steal compared to the tax bill home owners would have to endure to support their own fire service.

Keep in mind too, those residents general taxes are much lower than someone living in a city or area with municipal fire service so it's not like they are being charged 75 plus paying huge property taxes.

Like I've said, to me, it's insurance. I own a home. I pay home owners insurance in case anything happens.

You guys would actually be surprised, out west a lot of fire departments won't go into homes to put out fires either unless it's small or there is a danger to life. They operate under the idea of "That's what insurance is for."

Entering a burning structure should be the discretion of the firefighters themselves, based on their own risk-benefit analysis. However, showing up at the scene and using water to contain the fire from the outside should be required or the fire will spread to other homes, or in dry regions initiate a wildfire that consumes entire towns. Also, letting a small easy to put out fire grow into a raging inferno because someone hasn't paid a fee is quite frankly ret*d. They already spent the gas money to show up at the scene so it's not like they're saving much of anything. That leaves the motivation for doing so as being punishment/deterrent for nonpayment which I believe is not the way a civilized society should operate. Next we'll have paramedics deciding to let people bleed to death because they couldn't afford health insurance, or banning uninsured people from the ER.

It seems an odd set up. Is this sort of thing common in the US?

There's the obvious issue of public health and safety - fire doesn't care much for property lines. And say, in a street of twenty houses, if five end up burning down as they weren't covered - apart from anything else, that affects the quality of life of the other residents.

I agree. Too many people are inconsiderate imbeciles in this society. This summer was exceptionally hot and dry here in Michigan and only a couple miles from where I live an apartment complex almost got torched by a raging brush-fire started by some idiots shooting off fireworks. Once a fire goes up in an apartment complex it often wipes out multiple buildings in one fell swoop. Living in an apartment myself I always have to worry about other imbecile a**holes more than I would if I lived in a house. I also had selfish a**holes shooting loud fireworks 10 feet from my window at 1:00 AM, absolutely no respect. You call the police on them and of course they do absolutely nothing. They'd much rather harass homeless people and beat up protesters.

FEMA provides grant money for rural and volunteer fire departments; but as you can see this is not enough. I think it's high time to impose a "fire tax" on ALL property owners that helps fund emergency services within their county. And quite frankly this really should not be something people should be able to vote on as it is for their own good, yet they may be to dumb and short-sighted to realize it. Big cities for the most part do not seem to have this problem that I know of. Thank gawd I live in the city where sh*t gets done and people are smart enough not to allow this kind of thing to happen.

See? This is why I support the 2nd amendment and oppose any restrictions on it! You should get a pistol grip shotgun, go outside where they can see you standing there and tell them to knock it off.

^ because escalating the weaponry /always/ makes a situation better...

In a situation like that, it usually works. Especially if the COPS don't respond. Otherwise, what incentive to those people have to stop?