I would think this is a standard requirement with policies but who knows.
It would make sense if they charge an hourly rate of $75 per person plus a truck rental fee of $1000 per visit for those who choose poorly. A small fire would probably cost $2K.
Okay, so with a 50% recovery rate we need to charge $4k
What would you peg the cost of damage from a small fire?
Let’s say one room, drapes catch on a faulty wire. Some carpet damage, wall, ceiling repair. Some roof and new shingles. New window. And smoke damage. Maybe $5k?
What’s the likelihood that this guy has $9,000 he’s ready to cough up, and which bill do you think he’ll pay first? Keep in mind that the fire department will continue to have expenses while they wait.
Intimidating everyone else by making an example of someone who didn’t buy your services ahead of time, and then likening your service to “insurance”, is somehow considered a “rational business decision”.
Isn’t that how the mob works? “Nice little house you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it. Want to buy some protection?”
How about, “offering a service at a reasonable rate, then being forced to provide it free to people that don’t pay.”
Rational business model?
As for intimidation: wasn’t it suggested earlier that we have save his house because of a cost to the community. If we don’t save his house we won’t have his taxes, and we don’t have his taxes we won’t have any pudding.
It was then suggested that if we don’t save his house Mr Cranick will become a criminal, and lash out violently against the FD (again?).
Meanwhile, Best Buy continues to intimidate me by fixing other people’s phones for $7, fucking terrorists.
Only if you believe Der Tris’ theory that the fire department started the fire.
Meanwhile, AAA continues to send trucks to tow other cars, but leaves me standing on the side of the highway.
If I were a firefighter I’d have taken the guy’s money that he offered, pocketed it for myself, and put out the fire.
Of course the rest of the PD would have gone apeshit…
I didn’t say the actual cost to the business.
Exactly how far out of a city should the fire department be required to go to fight a fire in a house whose owner does not want the service? A mile? Ten? A hundred?
An ambulance ride can cost $750, easy.
For a fire, you get a truck that is 10x the cost of an ambulance, at least 3x as many people, who each need to be paid more per working hour because they have more idle time than EMTs
Frankly, for a small fire I’d figure a minimum of 10x the cost of an ambulance, you can jack that up big time if they need multiple trucks and an extended amount of time on site to make it safe.
The best part is that on your own, the guy’s house still would have burned to the ground. Now he’d have grounds to sue. And I know at least one juror that thinks you started the fire.
*One *of the mistakes you’ve made was missing the part about how initially they didn’t go to his house, they refused the call. They only went out there after the neighbour worried about his house. This is part of the reason your “intimidating” line fails, this guy’s house was gone.
Which is kind of funny how it gets back to the socialist trappings: in a government funded system, the FD would have either wasted valuable time and resources fighting an unwinnable fire. Or someone on a death panel would have made the cold calculation that his house wasn’t worth saving.
Hey, then we’d be fighting unemployment too! Bonus!
Wow. Is the Chicago FD morally obligated to put out fires in South Bend, IN? Is the New York FD a terrorist organization for refusing to put out fires in Beijing? If the fire isn’t in your jurisdiction, it isn’t in your jurisdiction. It just so happens this fire department was nice enough to offer services at a reasonable rate to customers stupid enough to live in an area without any fire protection at all. It’s like calling the guy in the soup kitchen a dick for not handing out bread sticks too.
That said, it’s pretty stupid for an area to NOT make some sort of arrangements for fire protection, if only a volunteer FD. And it is monumentally stupid for one individual to REFUSE to obtain the fire protection services charitably offered by the neighboring town.
Frankly, I think we all agree in this thread and are just talking past each other, arguing the definition of “libertarianism” and whatnot. Except for Der Trihs, who apparently thinks a fire department limiting its services to its own jurisdiction is a form of terrorism.
Unfortunately this is where your argument breaks down. Not everyone was happy with it. Cranick chose not to pay for the coverage but when his house was on fire he called the fire department. If he was happy with the arrangement he would have just let his house burn.
There must be a name for this sort of unpersuasive argument? Something like “construct-something-that-sounds-plausible-and-assert-must-be-true-by-common-sense-even-though-reality-obviously-contradicts-it”?
No, I didn’t take the deal.
No, you didn’t take the deal.
No, the fire department didn’t take the deal.
No, no-one else took the deal.
The deal was not taken.
I surmise it was a lousy deal, even if it sounded good enough for you to argue for(but not good enough for you to take).
Sandwich
Except they aren’t happy with it. As Crannick’s own words demonstrate, he thought he was getting fire protection for free:
So far from this being your little utopia of free market choices, the same residents who won’t pay are now pillorying the fire department, trying to pressure them by moral obligation to do what they won’t pay $75 to have them do.
If I have a business case that says I can make more money by charging an annual subscription to all of my potential customers, the rational decision is to have a subscription model and let ALL non subscribers pound sand.
I have a steady income that covers all my expenses, rather than a completely random income based on my ability to collect huge sums from people who are victimized by random events and desperate to save their homes.
Not to mention that, from a pricing standpoint, I could argue for an extremely high price on any fires that are too big for a homeowner to contain. I’m the only choice to save your house and belongings, I can take almost everything you own, and you’ll be better off paying than walking away.
But he was happy to not pay the $75 fee. That he is unhappy about not receiving a service he *knowingly *did not pay for is silly of him.
That was his son actually. And punching someone who let the family home burn is hardly that extreme a reaction, regardless of how justified or not doing so was.
Speculation, not theory. But if they didn’t this time they eventually will, because that’s what the incentives of such a system encourage. And I certainly wouldn’t expect moral scruples to stop libertarian types like these.
I didn’t say it was extreme. I intimated that it further colors my picture of the guy being a dickhead.
Yes, his son, so what? The teachable moment doesn’t imbue to him?