Libertarian fire dept. lets another home burn

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/te ... 41763.html

Yeah. They declined to pay for fire protection because they thought they would never need it.

I forget the precise details, but they live somewhere that does not have a fire department. Unincorporated county land or a small township - I forget.

They are, however, near a city which does have a fire department.

These libertarians who live somewhere without fire protection have not chosen - as a group - to increase their tax rates by $6.25/mo so that everyone in the affected area has fire protection.

It is good and right that the neighboring fire department offers coverage for a nominal fee. in the absence of responsible governance. It's better than nothing.

But we don't have a stupid department that protects people from making poor decisions.

Should of payed the fee.

They should have petitioned for Big Government to make them all pay the fee.

But they are libertarians, so they didn't.

You know, if I chose not to pay my car insurance and then got in a wreck, I don't think I'd get very far complaining that the insurance company didn't cover me anyway despite my refusal to pay. I also don't see the part of the article where the fire department is described as libertarian, as I don't think the label is just automatically applied to rural subscription based municipal services.

Just as you can not draw funds from a bank account that you've never paid into, what you do not pay for is not owed to you - plain and simple.

The owners did not pay for firefighters to save their home, so the firefighters were under no obligation to save it - also plain and simple.

I agree. The fire department in question has magnanimously offered a valuable service at a reasonable cost which they are under no obligation to offer at any price.

And these morons declined it.

And their moron ilk haven't leaned on their government to make it a general service.

I think its great to see libertarianism working.

We have another homeless family and they WILL suffer for their irresponsibility.



Ahh, sweet, libertarian, justice.

You have to love the american south.

Here's another fun one, from North Carolina this time:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/drunk-driver-crashes-booze-lose-dwi-checkpoint-center-194356181.html

Drunk driver crashes into mobile drunk driving prevention command center.

I am not much of a Libertarian myself, it does seem to have some benefits though. Surely however, its a matter of recognizing that some public goods are a requirement in order to have community? Just as a mentality that emphasizes public goods can turn into a nanny state, libertarianism can also be taken too far. All I can say is that a subscription based service is a bad idea, if you want to be a libertarian, feel free to opt out, but relying on people to pay for each service is unnecessarily complex, especially for basics like a fire department is quite silly. Muppets will always forget to pay their bills, but that does not mean they ought to be homeless.

Well it sounds like the individual Opt In for service is the result of dysfunctional local voters and their government.

However what we saw here is a predictable problem. The person who didn't pay finding themselves in dire need of help. There should have been a contingency. The senior fireman on site should have been able to offer a bill for the service, have the home owners sign it right there, then put out the fire and save the house.

Also I do think as they were not subscribers there should be a penalty in the bill and they should pay more. Yet I don't want to be to unreasonable. Maybe even if it has a penalty they could still workout a payment plan based on the income level of people living there.

The serious disanalogy being that care insurance payment occurs after the collision's occurred, so insurers can't mitigate it or the damage to other people. Letting fires burn is a f*cking stupid idea.

I support public insurance, btw.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 07 Dec 2011, 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 would support something like that; if you don't pay the premium and your house catches on fire, they'll put it out but bill you for the actual cost. I do believe you need to properly incentivize people to opt into the service, but there's no need to be unreasonable and let the house burn. Make it more like an ER visit, they'll take care of you but you're going to get billed afterwards.

Move to Britain. Britain has universal health care and free emergency services.

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.



False. You Brits pay for both of those through the many form of taxation you are subjected to.

Nothing you get from the government is "free." Someone had to pay for it.