Libertarianism In Action — Obion County, TN

[General Zod]

As if in complete shock to no one, Glenn Beck seems to take Kanastrous' stance

Radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck defended the fire department letting Cranick's home burn down.

"If you don't pay your $75 then that hurts the fire department," Beck said in response to the blaze. "They can't use those resources and you would be sponging off of your neighbor's $75 if they put out your neighbor's house and you didn't pay for it."

"As soon as they put out the fire of somebody who didn't pay the $75, no one will pay the $75," he said.

[Kanastrous]

Even a broken clock can be right, twice per day.

[Alphawolf55]

Except they could always charge on the spot, enough money to cover you more then a life time of living there and still not have your house burn down..

[Simon_Jester]

Except they could always charge on the spot, enough money to cover you more then a life time of living there and still not have your house burn down..

As others have pointed out before, it could be extremely difficult to collect the bill for several thousand dollars you charged someone for putting out their house fire.

[Soontir C'boath]

Except they could always charge on the spot, enough money to cover you more then a life time of living there and still not have your house burn down..

As others have pointed out before, it could be extremely difficult to collect the bill for several thousand dollars you charged someone for putting out their house fire.

Reading off of MSNBC, this family apparently did have homeowner's insurance and are getting some money back. I suppose what they can do is add a stipulation for insurance companies to reimburse the local government first for services rendered and pay out the remainder to the family. A bit like health insurance and hospitals.

[Broomstick]

The only hitch is that there is no fire service from the local government. The fire trucks came from a neighboring governmental unit. So make the stipulation that payment goes to whoever shows up to put out the fire and not just whatever government has jurisdiction over the area.

[Soontir C'boath]

The only hitch is that there is no fire service from the local government. The fire trucks came from a neighboring governmental unit. So make the stipulation that payment goes to whoever shows up to put out the fire and not just whatever government has jurisdiction over the area.

I'm glad what I had written only had to deal with such a minor nitpick.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, the problem is that lawyers in this country make a fine living off nitpicks like that...

[Soontir C'boath]

Yeah, the problem is that lawyers in this country make a fine living off nitpicks like that...

Yea, it is a shame I am not a lawyer.

[SirNitram]

Even a broken clock can be right, twice per day.

Or idiots flock together.

Here's a way to guarantee the funds to serve the area: A fire tax. A levy. It's this RADICAL thing that's been existing for a while, and it consistantly works. Taxation, gosh. Instead of unnecessary administration and bureacracy of keeping lists of whose in, and whose not, which is wasteful.

[RogueIce]

Except they could always charge on the spot, enough money to cover you more then a life time of living there and still not have your house burn down..

Are you not reading the thread or something? Legally, they can not charge you for it. The most they can do is bill you (later) a "service fee" which they have no power to enforce if people don't bother paying.

Is it that difficult to see that, under those conditions, there will be quite a few people who will never pay because they know they'll get away with it?

And I know everybody must be feeling really clever when they say "oh institute a tax to pay for it!" as if this has not been brought up repeatedly and agreed as the best long term solution to the problem. That's great and all, but it's not the current reality under which the local fire departments operate. And since it's up to the county residents to vote on any such tax (the cities to which the fire departments belong obviously have such taxes or other measures in place) there's not a damn thing South Fulton or any of the other seven cities can do about it. And from what I've read, they've tried and had it voted down. So there you go: apparently enough of the county residents aren't bothered enough by this situation to actually change it.*

Technically, they're already going above and beyond what they're required to do by even offering service in the first place.

*Which probably makes a certain amount of sense, to them. $75 a year is probably less than whatever the fire service tax might end up being. And that's only for those in the areas where the city FD charges a subscription. For those served by the FDs that only do the "service fee after we show up we can't force you to pay" it's an even better deal for them. So why go and ruin it, right?

Which is why earlier I said the best way to get them to act may be for the cities to just say they're not serving the county period until/unless there is some agreement with the county government itself, rather than on a per-citizen basis. That might be enough to get the county residents to do something about it: either approve a tax or beg the state government for help.

Indeed. Obion County can't get a FEMA grant because Obion County has no Fire Department with which to receive it:

On the other hand, So. Fulton which came out there does.

They do have a FD, and according to the document I posted they do receive some FEMA aid. But South Fulton is a city of 2500 people, with a little over 1,000 households. Obion County has 32,450 people in 13,182 households. Even if you split it up equally by the eight cities (a quick and dirty but probably not 100% accurate method) that leaves South Fulton with covering an extra 4,000 people and almost 1700 extra households; damn near twice what they have to cover in just their city alone.

Where do you think they'll get the money for this? Especially if they just show up, put out fires, and have people refuse to pay and they're unable to ever collect? I doubt FEMA grants will make up for this shortfall, and as again pointed out before in this thread (and the paper I linked to) the other FDs in the county are suffering financially because of this sort of thing.

[Phantasee]

If we're going after them for negligence I'm surprised not one of you legal scholars had the flash of inspiration to suggest...contributory negligence? Maybe, just maybe, more than one party is responsible for this shitty situation? Which is what me, Kanastrous, and I believe RogueIce have been saying for pages.

[General Zod]

If we're going after them for negligence I'm surprised not one of you legal scholars had the flash of inspiration to suggest...contributory negligence? Maybe, just maybe, more than one party is responsible for this shitty situation? Which is what me, Kanastrous, and I believe RogueIce have been saying for pages.

I think the key problem here isn't whether or not both parties share some degree of responsibility, but which one is more responsible for allowing the situation to get this far.

[Phantasee]

My reading of the posts seem to imply a binary decision on the part of some posters.

[General Zod]

My reading of the posts seem to imply a binary decision on the part of some posters.

The way I see it, it's possible the guy might have been irresponsible in handling the trash fire, but we can't say for certain. On the other hand the fire department was there, had the power to do something about it, but didn't. Now if you want to actually address someone's points instead of making vague insinuations, feel free.

[Edi]

Here's a question:

Do people on this forum actually have any sort of consistency, or do they just spew out shit based on gut feelings?

I'm seeing people resort to all kinds of legalistic nitpickery to defend or at least justify actions that ended in an ethically hideous outcome while in other threads the same people are expressing their moral outrage at an ethical lapse that just happens to line up with their predetermined ideas of how the world should work.

This thread has gone on for seven pages and it looks nearly as much of a clusterfuck as the dog shooting thread.

[Thanas]

If we're going after them for negligence I'm surprised not one of you legal scholars had the flash of inspiration to suggest...contributory negligence? Maybe, just maybe, more than one party is responsible for this shitty situation? Which is what me, Kanastrous, and I believe RogueIce have been saying for pages.

Nobody is going after them with neglicience (or at least I thought nobody did) but really, who do you think bears the overwhelming responsibility here?


***************
Also, Kanastrous, I very much would like an answer to my points.
***************

As to the rest - if you do not have a new viewpoint or a new argument to bring up, don't bother posting in this thread.

[The Dark]

At risk of angering the mods, I wanted to point out that the International Association of Fire Fighters has released a statement regarding this. It's available here (PDF file). In part, it reads:

Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities...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.

Please note that the IAFF is condemning the policy, not the people.

[Thanas]

At risk of angering the mods,

You are not angering the mods, except for not noticing I already posted the same thing a few posts above.

[JCady]

At risk of angering the mods, I wanted to point out that the International Association of Fire Fighters has released a statement regarding this. It's available here (PDF file). In part, it reads:

Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities...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.

Please note that the IAFF is condemning the policy, not the people.

Considering that the South Fulton Fire Department is a volunteer department and not a "professional, career fire fighter" unit, it's painfully obvious that the IAFF statement was made in abject ignorance of the situation.

[Thanas]

That doesn't make the argument any less right, though.

[Shroom Man 777]

This reminds me of how in the Philippines, when there is a fire the Fire Department will send trucks and stuff, but they arrive to the scene the firemen will say that they are out of water. This is why whenever there is a fire, the first thing people will do is to get wads of money to give to the firemen, since if the firemen have money then they'll decide that they're not out of water.

The Chinese Volunteer Firemen try to beat the Fire Department on the scene, but when the Fire Department guys are on the scene first they block the way of the Chinese Volunteers. The Chinese Volunteers can't do anything when this happens, because if they do the right thing and try put the fire out, they're afraid that the firemen from the Fire Department will come after them and do reprisals by beating them up (or killing them) or something.

This is what my mom tells me though. I don't want to find out first hand.

[Vendetta]

Considering that the South Fulton Fire Department is a volunteer department and not a "professional, career fire fighter" unit, it's painfully obvious that the IAFF statement was made in abject ignorance of the situation.

The status of the So. Fulton fire department as volunteers should have no bearing on their commitment to being firefighters, and certainly has no bearing on the moral responsibilities of the role whether they are paid or volunteer.

[JCady]

Considering that the South Fulton Fire Department is a volunteer department and not a "professional, career fire fighter" unit, it's painfully obvious that the IAFF statement was made in abject ignorance of the situation.

The status of the So. Fulton fire department as volunteers should have no bearing on their commitment to being firefighters, and certainly has no bearing on the moral responsibilities of the role whether they are paid or volunteer.

It makes a big difference. With professional firefighters you can make the argument that, "You guys get paid just the same either way, so you should just put out the fire and let the lawyers handle the rest." With unpaid volunteers, they're already generously donating their time and I would argue that they're entirely entitled to refrain from helping anyone who spits in their face like that.

[ShadowDragon8685]

It makes a big difference. With professional firefighters you can make the argument that, "You guys get paid just the same either way, so you should just put out the fire and let the lawyers handle the rest." With unpaid volunteers, they're already generously donating their time and I would argue that they're entirely entitled to refrain from helping anyone who spits in their face like that.

Volunteer or not, rescue services personnel have a duty of care to discharge their trained abilities in the service of the public. A cop doesn't get to say "I won't get justice for you because you spit in my face last week," even if it was literal. An EMT doesn't get to say "I won't save your life because you don't pay your taxes."

A fire company, of all rescue services, sure as hell should not be able to say "I won't extinguish your blaze because you didn't cough up seventy-five fucking dollars."