From news sources like Britain’s Daily Telegraph we learn that
I’ve mixed feelings about the story. I’m opposed to “freeloaders” and part of me wants to say “serves the Cranicks right.” On the other hand, fire protection is often cited as a natural application for community cooperation.
What do Dopers think? (Since lefties will probably trot out their usual Marxist message, it’s those with libertarian or conservative views I’m most interested in hearing from.)
It was both unethical and stupid. They were literally playing with fire; what if it had gone out of control? What if someone had been caught and burned to death? This is the sort of mentality that helped cause the old-time great city fires, and a major reason we moved away from the “protection money” version of fire control.
EDIT: And before someone else says it; technically it isn’t libertarianism since it’s still a government run agency. But it is the kind of only-get-what-you-pay-for model they want. And this sort of thing or worse is the inevitable result of such a model.
If the couple had been trapped in their house I’d expect someone to rescue them - it’s not worth letting people burn to death for the sake of $75.
But otherwise it seems like a natural consequence of the free market.
Would home insurance pay out in a case like this? Presumably if they are insured they can claim for a new property (Ok, won’t replace photos etc but the house will be sorted).
Is there likely to be a clause in the insurance requiring subscription to a local fire service if one’s in place?
I wonder if the couple had a large propane tank in the back yard, close to the fire, would the fire crews have tackled that (if an explosion would have taken out the neighbours).
The firefighters should have suggested to buy the house for a penny. That’s how Crasus made his fortune.
Of course they should have put out the fire. They’re firefighters. It’s their duty.
That isn’t libertarianism, that’s just stupidity. Hopefully the other residents learn a lesson from this though, probably time to form a volunteer fire dept. Probably be more expensive than $75 a household to setup, but the extra money would be worth the peace of mind knowing that you don’t have to rely on total assholes like that cities FD.
Plus I’m rather surprised this policy is legal. What with the concerns about fires spreading out of control and turning into large scale wildfires, I would have thought the federal government had regulations prohibiting knowingly allowing a fire to burn out of control. I’m also surprised the county hasn’t made the $75 fee mandatory for property owners. Granted, this is TN rather than California with it’s wildfire issues, but still, I actually googled other sources for the story just because it sounded so far fetched.
That’s a criticism of the free market, not a justification for what happened.
The two are hardly incompatible, in fact they share a close relationship.
Nope.
They are firefighters who are only employed to put out fires in homes that pay a fee to fund the service - they have no duty to people who don’t pay.
Yes, they do. Fires don’t respect property lines. Your attitude is the sort that burns down cities.
Put me down on Der Trihs’ side here. Homeowners having the liberty not to pay for fire protection is Libertarianism at its best (or at its worst? – I dunno, I’m not a libertarian) and for a “Libertarian” to reject those parts of his philosophy which are “stupid” is to play a game of tautologies and meaninglessnesses. Heck! Even I might be a Beck-Palinist if their stupidities are excluded. 
Since the thread’s title is about Libertarianism (and since I started it anyway), can I hijack slightly to ask another question of libertarians? What do we all think of the Teabagger contention that the “liberty” of a week-old fetus resulting from rape requires condemning the rape victim to pregnancy and motherhood?
If houses to the left and right of my abode are burnt-out husks, what does that do for my own property value? Is the fire department going to build a wall to keep out the stench? How will they stop the smoke damage from crossing the boundary lines?
You’d think that the option “save the damn house then bill them for the cost of saving it” would occur to someone with two brain cells to rub together. I would imagine that in most cases this would run to considerably more than $75, and would be plenty of incentive not to freeload.
Unless of course someone was more concerned with punishing the freeloaders than running a sane firefighting operation.
I think it would make a great subject for another thread.
And in fact, that’s exactly what the house owners offered the Fire Dept. They refused.
This isn’t even about free markets, or libertarianism or whatever; it’s just completely stupid management.
Is this common in the US? That you have to subscribe to emergency services? Do you have to pay an annual police subscription fee as well?
Jesus, what the hell do you guys pay taxes for?
Glad to see the fire chief got a punch in the face though. It’s just a shame it was a fist rather than a baseball bat.
This isn’t about libertarianism, it’s all about providing services outside of your normal responsibilities. Here’s another link.
The South Fulton fire department provides fire protection within the city limits, presumably paid for by residential taxes. The Cranicks live outside the city limits, in an area that has no fire department at all, they do not pay any taxes towards running a fire department.
The city generously offers folks outside the city the ability to get coverage by subscribing with the city, these jokers figured they could save their money and the fire department would put out their fire anyway.
Allowing people to pay after the fact is a great idea if you don’t want to have anyone on the subscription anymore, and want to deal with perpetual billing arguments and deadbeats who don’t have 2 nickels to rub together. At most, you’ll put a lien on the house, and get paid (maybe) in 30 years when they want to sell. All of those unrecovered costs get borne by the city residents who actually pay to fund the service, and who now have a fire department busy all over the county.
The real answer is to have the county (where the Cranicks live) fund firefighting service through their property taxes. They can have their own separate service or contract through municipalities like South Fulton, whatever works.
As a libertarian I have used this exact example in the past for where taxpayer-funded services are not just appropriate, but essential. You have a duty to your neighbours to combat a fire that starts on your property, so that your behavour that caused the fire does not cause your neighbours to suffer.
I’m with the firefighters on this one. The Crannicks took a risk and didn’t pay their insurance - for that’s what the fee is - and paid the price.
If it is an insurance, why would they refuse to put out the fire in exchange for the full cost?
Libertarianism at its stupidest extreme.
I’m with Cheesteak and Grumman, and you could call me a lower-case “l” libertarian.
At least the Cranicks aren’t all “Woe is me! Why God, WHY?” about the whole affair; they pretty much admit straight up, “Yup, we sure screwed up.” So I give them points for that.
And septimus, I’ll take a cite on that Tea Party abortion stance.