Libertarian fire dept. lets another home burn

Page 2 of 10 [ 150 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10 Next

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

07 Dec 2011, 8:45 am

I live in Britain and I'd happily pay even higher taxes for public services, even ones I may never use.

I don't understand the American Libertarian mindset, at all.

_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

07 Dec 2011, 9:11 am

zer0netgain wrote:

Wouldn't work.

ODDS ARE....someone who won't pay for the service probably DOES NOT have homeowner's insurance. Without that, there is no hope that they can pay for the services rendered. I say this because I'm fairly certain an insurance carrier would require them to pay for the service if they want to be issued a policy.

Slap a lien on any non-insured property saved by the fire-crews, that seems like it would have the desired motivational effect.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Dec 2011, 9:43 am

Dox47 wrote:

Slap a lien on any non-insured property saved by the fire-crews, that seems like it would have the desired motivational effect.

Exactly. Put out the fire first. Sue for the cost of doing so, second.

Public safety should be the number one issue, not who will pay.

ruveyn

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

07 Dec 2011, 12:15 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Slap a lien on any non-insured property saved by the fire-crews, that seems like it would have the desired motivational effect.

Exactly. Put out the fire first. Sue for the cost of doing so, second.

Public safety should be the number one issue, not who will pay.

ruveyn

You will have to assign the lien the same priority that unpaid taxes have, so that it will outrank pre-existing charges on title.

But at the end of the day, what is the public policy goal to be achieved by such an approach? Are we truly interested in creating a society in which we have to engage the courts in order to deal with individuals who opt out from public programs of general application? We may have significant disagreements about the proper scope of public programs, but surely we can agree that fire and police protective services ought properly to be non-optional.

_________________
--James

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

07 Dec 2011, 12:25 pm

1. If there are children in the house, do the firefighters listen to them scream as they burn to death?

2. If a homeowner is underwater in his/her mortgage, they can set their house on fire and collect the insurance. As the house will burn completely with no interference from the fire department, it would be difficult to ascertain the cause afterward.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Dec 2011, 12:30 pm

visagrunt wrote:

You will have to assign the lien the same priority that unpaid taxes have, so that it will outrank pre-existing charges on title.

l.

Whatever. It is legally doable. There is no principled reason for sacrificing public safety on the alter of claims priority. Public safety is why we have fire companies in the first place.

ruveyn

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

07 Dec 2011, 1:38 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Should of payed the fee.

You do understand that fires spread and that, as they grow, they become increasingly hard to put out, right? F*cking mass country-side fires can start by deciding not to put out a small farm fire because somebody didn't pay the fee.

I'm sure if this was a forest fire area they would of put it out although I'm pretty sure they let those burn themselves out rather than wasting resources. Doesn't sound like they're letting these fires burn out of control anyways since the fire department does respond to watch them burn.

Pay the fee or don't live in a rural unincorporated community that doesn't provide it's own fire service. Considering this home had wheels, that's not that unreasonable of a request.

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

07 Dec 2011, 1:42 pm

If the firefighters put out the fires of peoples homes that didn't pay, would people en masse quit paying for their service?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Dec 2011, 1:45 pm

snapcap wrote:

If the firefighters put out the fires of peoples homes that didn't pay, would people en masse quit paying for their service?

Not if they are stuck with the bill by a legal process.

ruveyn

cw10
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

07 Dec 2011, 1:49 pm

Dox47 wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

Slap a lien on any non-insured property saved by the fire-crews, that seems like it would have the desired motivational effect.

If you have a mortgage, you have homeowners insurance.

Not everyone owns their home free and clear.

If you're really worried about paying the bank back, you can purchase PMI, but it's still a ripoff.

Maybe send them the bill Dox? That would be one hell of a bill.

Last edited by cw10 on 07 Dec 2011, 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

07 Dec 2011, 1:52 pm

snapcap wrote:

If the firefighters put out the fires of peoples homes that didn't pay, would people en masse quit paying for their service?

There certainly would be no incentive to pay and if people didn't pay, I imagine the town of South Fulton simply wouldn't provide fire service to the surrounding unincorporated rural areas.

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

07 Dec 2011, 2:48 pm

Jacoby wrote:

snapcap wrote:

If the firefighters put out the fires of peoples homes that didn't pay, would people en masse quit paying for their service?

There certainly would be no incentive to pay and if people didn't pay, I imagine the town of South Fulton simply wouldn't provide fire service to the surrounding unincorporated rural areas.

Would they have the foresight to know that if the fire department wasn't paid enough, they'd be SOL? I'm sure some people wouldn't pay, but would it be enough to make the department ineffective?

VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

07 Dec 2011, 3:11 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Are we truly interested in creating a society in which we have to engage the courts in order to deal with individuals who opt out from public programs of general application?

We may have significant disagreements about the proper scope of public programs, but surely we can agree that fire and police protective services ought properly to be non-optional.

I would say most of us even in wacky America are in fact interested in creating a society with basic services for all. We should keep in mind these stories are not the norm, but from a very few dysfunctional local governments and local voters who can't make up their mind how to run things.

Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

07 Dec 2011, 3:21 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

Good point. And here I was contemplating starting a for-profit DIY fire extinguishing service. "BUCKET GUY© Fire Control Service." They have local service here, though, so I'd have to get voters to axe the municipal service first. :p

_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

07 Dec 2011, 4:37 pm

cw10 wrote:

What happens if your insurer refuses to pay because you failed to pay for fire protection services? Your action exposed the insurer to greater risk because the damage from a fire would likely exceed that harm to which the insurer would have been exposed had you paid for the services. To my mind that likely would give them every right to refuse coverage unless the law prohibited them from doing so.

_________________
--James

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

07 Dec 2011, 8:03 pm

It's not a tragic burning down of someone's home; it's a freedom fire.

Page 2 of 10 [ 150 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10 Next

Jump to:

Libertarian fire dept. lets another home burn Post Reply New Topic

Libertarian fire dept. lets another home burn