Libertarianism In Action — Obion County, TN

[Kanastrous]

It's hardly 'punishment,' any more than not-receiving anything for which you have not-paid, is punishment.

[General Zod]

It's hardly 'punishment,' any more than not-receiving anything for which you have not-paid, is punishment.

They stood around doing nothing while he begged them to put it out, and you don't consider that a punishment or being vindictive in the slightest?

[Thanas]

It's hardly 'punishment,' any more than not-receiving anything for which you have not-paid, is punishment.

I view emergency services to be the right of every citizen in a civilized country. Don't you?

[Kanastrous]

I can't speak for the firefighters, but no, not really. You-didn't-pay-for-what-others-paid-for/you-don't-receive-what-they-receive does not impress me as intrinsically vindictive.

I view emergency services to be the right of every citizen in a civilized country. Don't you?

That's certainly what I would prefer. But it seems very well-established by the reportage that this is not the arrangement under which the people in this area had set things up. And until a court rules that their arrangement was not legitimate, I will treat it as legitimate (in the very narrowest it-was-in-conformity-with-the-law sense of the word).

I suspect that if a member of the family had been running around on fire, the FD would have behaved differently than they would with a mere structure being on fire.

[General Zod]

I suspect that if a member of the family had been running around on fire, the FD would have behaved differently than they would with a mere structure being on fire.

How could they know whether or not someone was trapped inside without actually investigating the building? Especially if someone other than the owner had called it in?

[Thanas]

I can't speak for the firefighters, but no, not really. You-didn't-pay-for-what-others-paid-for/you-don't-receive-what-they-receive does not impress me as intrinsically vindictive.

It is in the specific context. Let's say a family member is brought into the hospital. They find out said member will die within several hours. They also refuse to do anything to help the relative since you did not pay for a 1$ candy bar you took out of a vending machine a few months ago. Family member dies.

Before you now start to say that this is a different matter because there is life and death involved, the principle still remains the same - an overtly harsh punishment for a very minor infraction.

For God's sake, they even let innocent pets burn to death. They destroyed the entire livelihood of a person to boot. In doing so, they did not only harm the person who forgot to pay his fee, they also severely harmed his family, which has done nothing to deserve this.

I suspect that if a member of the family had been running around on fire, the FD would have behaved differently than they would with a mere structure being on fire.

So the agonized screams of the pets as they were burnt alive do not register here? It is a special kind of jerk who refuses to rescue a pet, which is completely innocent of everything done here.

[Kanastrous]

How could they know whether or not someone was trapped inside without actually investigating the building? Especially if someone other than the owner had called it in?

Presumably they would have asked the property owner on the phone or in person, but I don't really know. And that aspect of it is why I agree that the FD is not squeaky-clean in this, either.

[General Zod]

How could they know whether or not someone was trapped inside without actually investigating the building? Especially if someone other than the owner had called it in?

Presumably they would have asked the property owner on the phone or in person, but I don't really know. And that aspect of it is why I agree that the FD is not squeaky-clean in this, either.

Supposing the property owner had just returned home and had family, they wouldn't know whether or not someone was trapped inside either. But really, refusing to act when you have the power to do so is the whole reason we have negligence laws.

[SVPD]

You know what happens if the firefighters take payment on the spot? The next year, a whole bunch of people don't pay their fees figuring "hey I don't need to, they'll cut me the same deal as that old guy and if not I'll sue them". Then the fire department's revenue drops significantly and everyone's fire protection is endangered. Evidently this is exactly what's happening in the other deparments in the county where they are going bankrupt on the $500 per call model. If those departments also average 23 calls a year, that's only $11,500 in fees, a pittance to the costs of a fire department, assuming that everyone pays, and apparently you can't compel them to.

So, the issue is not merely the fee vs. the harm of the fire, but how this will affect future ability to fund the department's obligations in view of the fact that they are serving an area with people who won't even elect a county government that will tax them for something as basic as a fire department.

[Broomstick]

Without seeing a map I have no idea whether the fire or its embers were coming near the neighbor's actual structures, or not. A burned patch in a field does not impress me as a big deal in and of itself.

Don't know many farmers, do you?

Sure, a "burned patch in a field" is no big deal unless, of course, it's a crop and it represents a significant portion of your income for the entire year.

Of course, we don't know if this was a vacant lot or a valuable cash crop, nor do we know how much of it burned, but for a farmer what's in the field can be very important indeed. So important that some farmers even take out insurance on their crops. That, however, costs money and doesn't always cover everything.

[Thanas]

You know what happens if the firefighters take payment on the spot? The next year, a whole bunch of people don't pay their fees figuring "hey I don't need to, they'll cut me the same deal as that old guy and if not I'll sue them". Then the fire department's revenue drops significantly and everyone's fire protection is endangered. Evidently this is exactly what's happening in the other deparments in the county where they are going bankrupt on the $500 per call model. If those departments also average 23 calls a year, that's only $11,500 in fees, a pittance to the costs of a fire department, assuming that everyone pays, and apparently you can't compel them to.

So, the issue is not merely the fee vs. the harm of the fire, but how this will affect future ability to fund the department's obligations in view of the fact that they are serving an area with people who won't even elect a county government that will tax them for something as basic as a fire department.

The solution is easy - those who forgot to pay or did not pay are heavily fined and get to eat the costs from the fire department use.

[Kanastrous]

It is in the specific context. Let's say a family member is brought into the hospital. They find out said member will die within several hours. They also refuse to do anything to help the relative since you did not pay for a 1$ candy bar you took out of a vending machine a few months ago. Family member dies.

Before you now start to say that this is a different matter because there is life and death involved, the principle still remains the same - an overtly harsh punishment for a very minor infraction.

I do think that the addition of a clear life-or-death element alters the situation substantially. I guess we may have to just disagree there. Property being interchangeable with life sounds like a rather Libertarian sentiment to me, all by itself...

And there was no infraction - the property owner had the right to not pay into the fund; he didn't break any rules by doing so. He made a choice, either consciously or by default, and a consequence of that choice was little or no fire service because that is how their system there is constituted. And there was no punishment, either; there was certainly a set of consequences deriving from his decision to not pay the fees - and likewise from the firefighters' decision to not-respond to a call from an address which had not-paid, their clearly stated policy.

For God's sake, they even let innocent pets burn to death.

Yes, that's awful. I'm not suggesting that any part of this story isn't pretty awful. Although it's not clear to me from the coverage that the firefighters knew the pets were in there; even when informed that pets were around they may have assumed that the animals had made it out of the house. And, do we know that even had the home been covered, the FD would have gone in after the pets? Firefighters usually don't go to the same extremes to save animals that they will, for humans; I don't know that they would have entered the house looking for pets even if they were responding to a paid-subscriber's call.

They destroyed the entire livelihood of a person to boot.

No, the property-owner's family's careless use of fire near the house, plus the property owner's decision to not pay the fire-coverage fees did that.

In doing so, they did not only harm the person who forgot to pay his fee, they also severely harmed his family, which has done nothing to deserve this.

I don't agree with the implicit assumption that this is a matter of something being done to the family. Except by the head of the household, who clearly knowingly failed to provide his family with a relatively cheap form of coverage against this kind of catastrophe.

So the agonized screams of the pets as they were burnt alive do not register here? It is a special kind of jerk who refuses to rescue a pet, which is completely innocent of everything done here.

Do we have reportage of 'agonized screams' or is this drama? Maybe it's in one of the articles and I missed it. And as noted, not every firefighter at every fire is going to go in after every pet, regardless of the circumstances. Past a certain point endangering human lives for the sake of animal lives is not usual practice.

[General Zod]

You know what happens if the firefighters take payment on the spot? The next year, a whole bunch of people don't pay their fees figuring "hey I don't need to, they'll cut me the same deal as that old guy and if not I'll sue them". Then the fire department's revenue drops significantly and everyone's fire protection is endangered. Evidently this is exactly what's happening in the other deparments in the county where they are going bankrupt on the $500 per call model. If those departments also average 23 calls a year, that's only $11,500 in fees, a pittance to the costs of a fire department, assuming that everyone pays, and apparently you can't compel them to.

So, the issue is not merely the fee vs. the harm of the fire, but how this will affect future ability to fund the department's obligations in view of the fact that they are serving an area with people who won't even elect a county government that will tax them for something as basic as a fire department.

Then they should use it as an incentive to rethink their funding model.

[Kanastrous]

What they have now sounds like the kind of funding model that one adopts out of desperation and settles for having, at best. It doesn't sound like something one comes up with when one actually has workable options. 'Rethinking' is only useful when you can actually implement a better idea that you have thought up.

[Broomstick]

They destroyed the entire livelihood of a person to boot.

No, the property-owner's family's careless use of fire near the house, plus the property owner's decision to not pay the fire-coverage fees did that.

Was there carelessness involved? You don't have to be careless to have a house fire. Just last week I and my boss - who is a fully licensed and insured general contractor, fully qualified to perform the work and with decades of experience - accidentally set my roof on fire while making repairs.* You can have electrical shorts brought on by rodents chewing on wiring. Gas leaks. All sorts of little problems.


* Fire was put out, only very minor damage, every it OK. Just in case you were wondering.

[General Zod]

They destroyed the entire livelihood of a person to boot.

No, the property-owner's family's careless use of fire near the house, plus the property owner's decision to not pay the fire-coverage fees did that.

Was there carelessness involved? You don't have to be careless to have a house fire. Just last week I and my boss - who is a fully licensed and insured general contractor, fully qualified to perform the work and with decades of experience - accidentally set my roof on fire while making repairs.* You can have electrical shorts brought on by rodents chewing on wiring. Gas leaks. All sorts of little problems.


* Fire was put out, only very minor damage, every it OK. Just in case you were wondering.

According to the link I posted a few pages ago they were burning trash and it got out of control. Whether or not they were being careless about it is a matter of speculation.

[Thanas]

I do think that the addition of a clear life-or-death element alters the situation substantially. I guess we may have to just disagree there.

Like heck we will. Fine. As you apparently cannot understand the underlying principle, how's this. You get a bill for over 75$. You pay it for several years, then one year, you forget. Your partner then decides to take your entire livelihood away. Now, do you understand the principle?

Heck, there even is a legal doctrine for this kind of situation, the misuse of rights. It basically covers situations where one person uses a legal right to screw over another.

And there was no infraction - the property owner had the right to not pay into the fund; he didn't break any rules by doing so. He made a choice, either consciously or by default, and a consequence of that choice was little or no fire service because that is how their system there is constituted. And there was no punishment, either; there was certainly a set of consequences deriving from his decision to not pay the fees - and likewise from the firefighters' decision to not-respond to a call from an address which had not-paid, their clearly stated policy.

Are you a libertarian? Because that is the only way this makes any sense at all.

A person who starves to death while richguy #1 is munching down on his third sandwich next to him according to you made the choice, either consciously or by default, to starve to death. Since when have essential services have become a ware in the US?

Really, you defeating a fire brigade which practices what can be charitably described as extortion has got to be a new highlight.

No, the property-owner's family's careless use of fire near the house, plus the property owner's decision to not pay the fire-coverage fees did that.

This is the most messed up causality I have ever seen by you.

[Thanas]

Also: No dogpiling of Kanastrous in this thread. Anybody else piling on will get his "contributions" HoS'ed.

[Kanastrous]

Really, you defeating a fire brigade which practices what can be charitably described as extortion has got to be a new highlight.

I assume you mean defending.

I don't know how frequently I have to repeat that I don't think the FD should get a total pass, either. I simply think that given his options and opportunities, the contributions of the homeowner to the mess should not be ignored.

*EDIT*

'Extortion' would mean give us money right here right now, or we let your house burn. Which is the opposite of what happened; they refused on-the-spot-right-now payment, despite the owner's understandable eagerness to give it to them.

[Thanas]

Yes, if that was not clear from the context.

[Kanastrous]

According to the link I posted a few pages ago they were burning trash and it got out of control. Whether or not they were being careless about it is a matter of speculation.

I'd call it a given that building, placing, and burning a trash fire so that it can do the damage reported is the result of carelessness. But since we weren't there I have to allow as that it may not be the case.

[General Zod]

According to the link I posted a few pages ago they were burning trash and it got out of control. Whether or not they were being careless about it is a matter of speculation.

I'd call it a given that building, placing, and burning a trash fire so that it can do the damage reported is the result of carelessness. But since we weren't there I have to allow as that it may not be the case.

We don't know what the specific conditions were like, so any suggestion of carelessness is conjecture at best, projection at worse. For all we know the wind could have picked up and caused a few embers to drift.

[Thanas]

Oh, hey guess who also thought the actions were reprehensible? The International Association of Fire Fighters - PDF

International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger
today issued the following statement on the September 29 fire in Obion County, Tennessee:

“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home.
[...]
We condemn South Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”

And guess what - even far-righters say the firefighters are wrong. Case in point - Daniel Foster, National Review online:

But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?

The counterargument is, of course, that this kind of system only works if there are consequences for opting out. For the firefighters to have put out the blaze would have opened up a big moral hazard and generated a bunch of future free-riding — a lot like how the ban on denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, paired with penalties under the individual mandate that are lower than the going premiums, would lead to folks waiting until they got sick to buy insurance.

But that analogy is not quite apt. Mr. Cranick, who has learned an incredibly expensive lesson about risk, wasn’t offering to pay the $75 fee. He was offering to pay whatever it cost to put out the fire. If an uninsured man confronted with the pressing need for a heart transplant offered to pay a year in back-premiums to an insurer to cover the operation, you’d be right to laugh at him. But imagine if that man broke out his check book to pay for the whole shebang, and hospital administrators denied him the procedure to teach him a lesson.

I’m a conservative with fairly libertarian leanings, but this is a kind of government for which I would not sign up.
[...]
Yes, make him sign a contract if you like. My point is that, if you’re the firefighter, you have all-things-considered reasons here to put out that fire. You’re a free, reasonable agent and you have to weigh your moral and prudential reasons for acting here. On the one side you have the chance of nonpayment, the potential for creating a free-rider problem, and your duties to the town and the department that employ you. On the other you have the fact that we’ve got a pretty sophisticated system for enforcing contracts — written or otherwise. You also have the fact that letting the blaze burn could lead to damaged property (not to mention loss of life) among fee-paying citizens. (Consider: if policing were opt-in, and an outlaw were holed up in your house with a gun to your head, should we wait to arrest him until he leaves your property — come what may?). And then there’s the little matter of your individual conscience.

Do readers think that the preponderance of your reasons here really tell you not to act?

[Lagmonster]

I'm sorry about getting in late to the party, so I apologize if I missed this while whipping through the salient points of the thread, but on the subject of the fire department just standing around watching;

Does anyone know how the protections for the firefighters themselves factored into it? Firefighting is dangerous business; the men may in fact be risking their health and their lives. Now, I would assume logically that in the event that a firefighter was injured while on the job, he could be covered by his employer. But if he was injured, say, helping a neighbour put out a kitchen fire on his own time, that wouldn't count as 'on the job', and he might not recieve similar assistance.

Bear in mind strongly that I'm not well-versed in how the American insurance industry and such actually works, so my train of thought might not be going anywhere. But I was immediately struck wondering whether the firefighters would have been conscious that they were taking a personal risk by helping the man 'unofficially'.

[Serafina]

Yes, the necessity for consequences to uphold the payment-scheme is the only justification here (not a good one, mind you).
But seriously - there are far better ways to do that. One possiblility is to just retroactively charge for all the months/years that were not paid for, plus interest - that way, not paying won't safe you any money. Or just charge any arbitrary fee.
Oh, you can't due to federal law? That just demonstrates how idiotic the whole system is.