But sometimes it does. Deliberately standing by and letting the fire grow can’t possibly be as safe for the town than actually fighting the fire.
Irrelevant. That doesn’t give them the right to endanger others.
To do their job and not put the lives and property of thousands of other people in danger.
(I haven’t read the whole thread, only skimmed)
I’m interested to know what effect this incident had on the amount of homes in the unincorporated area suddenly deciding to pay the $75.
I suspect that this one incident led to a significant increase in those choosing to pay, and will probably continue to have a lasting effect in the community for years to come.
If they feel like they needed to put out the fire on the non-paying customer’s property to save a paying customer’s property, then they would have - I don’t doubt this. Or are you substituting your armchair risk assessments for those who were actually there?
They weren’t. An article I read about this mentioned that human life was not in danger. And, even if it was, it does give them the right. If they decide to cut off this rural service, it’s going to be endangering more - do you think they don’t have the right to limit fire services to their township?
It’s not their job to put out fires on properties where the fee hasn’t been paid.
I mean, you realize this was in farm country, right? It’s not like their TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY hovel shared lot lines with a wooden skyscaper and a elementary school.
No - they didn’t drive out to Cranick’s and then refuse to put out the fire. They refused the call entirely. They only went out when his neighbor (who had paid for the service) called to prevent the fire from spreading on to his property.
JOe
good. one more community all aboard the socialism train. at least for fire services 
You never answered my query about Whoooshing. I think you’re mostly whoooshing yourself. 
Just to help you connect the dots a little, no one here (except you in your cutesy whoooshing ways) is arguing in favor of freeloaders. I’m arguing that “to secure certain blessings governments are instituted among men.” “Libertarians”, or at least the saner ones, are agreeing that coercive payment policies are appropriate for fire protection.
When you get tired of whoooshing yourself, drop by and let us know what, if anything, you believe.
I wouldn’t trust the judgment or the honesty of people like this, no.
No, they don’t because doing so is stupid. Again, fires don’t magically stop at borders. Nor did they have any magical means of knowing for sure that human life was not in danger. Nor with such libertarian attitudes do I think they actually cared if people died.
It’s their job to fight fires, thus the name “fire fighters”. Not to stand by and not fight fires. Not to endanger other people so they can make an example of someone.
That’s more terrorism than socialism. A protection racket; “nice property you have here, shame if something happened to it”. As I said above, I wouldn’t be very surprised if the fire department started the fire themselves. It would be the profit motive in action.
I think you really need to take a look at exactly where this fire occurred.
Fires are magically going to stop in the middle of fields when enough water is poured on them, and it’s probably not going to do much in the way of damage.
So a doctor has criminal liability if he’s walking down the street, someone’s bleeding out, and he doesn’t break stride? Please.
No, it’s “nice property you have there - how about you contribute to the community like everyone else does, so as to prevent mishap from destroying your life. Oh, you didn’t want to do that? So sorry that your house burned down. Better luck next time” there’s no protection racket here, unless you think that paying taxes to sustain fire services is a protection racket.
As if fires never cross fields. :rolleyes:
Last I heard, yes they are considered to have a duty to render aid.
Deliberately letting the fire burn until it endangered the neighbor and refusing to accept money to stop the fire is very much an example of terrorism, yes. They were clearly trying to spread fear by making an example of him.
Even funnier with an Indian accent
To be more specific they are South Fulton Fire Department Fire Fighters. Their job is to put out fires in South Fulton.
From their website
Oh, and for the record, doctors at one hospital do not have a responsibility to provide aid at a different hospital that refuses to hire their own doctors.
It’s their job to fight fires in the local municipality, and fight them outside those borders for people who have paid their fire subscription. They did fight this fire, and I will trust the judgement of a professional firefighter over some armchair joker on the internet as to whether what they did was safe.
Your community covers your firefighting with your taxes. I agree that this community should do that as well, HOWEVER, they do not. So you roption is to pay for fire service to help offset the cost of the fire department showing up, or watch your house burn down.
The problem is that ‘libertarians’ are always forced to fight straw man arguments because other people assume that libertarianism has to be ‘pure’, and ‘pure’ means anarchism. So those of us who simply want to eliminate government from areas where market solutions exist and where government has demonstrably failed are instead subjected to arguments about privatizing fire services and police forces.
In other words, opponents of Libertarianism always attack it from its weakest point - the extreme fringe, which they elevate to be representative of mainstream libertarianism, and then if they can shoot down the fringe argument they act as if all of libertarianism has been discredited.
It would be like a liberal proposing a new regulation of finance, and being forced to debate the collectivization of agriculture instead because it’s all ‘statism’, and if you can’t defend collectivization of agriculture then ‘statism’ can be shown to have failed and therefore you should not be allowed to regulate finance. How would that work for you?
When a profit motive is involved? Don’t be silly. The whole reason that this sort of setup was originally abandoned was because the result was huge fires when the “fire fighters” stood by and let anyone who didn’t pay burn, and then the fire spread. Even if they aren’t behind this one it’s probably only a matter of time before they start indulging in arson, that setup practically demands it.
They offered to pay at the site and the money was refused. That made it not about the money, but out of deliberate desire to see them burn.
again, they take care of the protected parties fields and whatnot. you’re blowing this way out of proportion, wailing as if millions of dollars of property and many many lives were at stake by their “recklessness” the truth, as is as plain as that satellite image, is that the only people at risk were the morons who opted out of fire insurance/protection
you heard wrong, then. and they especially have no criminal liability if they failed in that duty.
Am I a terrorist if I tell you “screw off, you can’t have my bottle of water, even for 10,000 dollars” if you’re dying of thirst in the desert? No, I am not.
And “deliberately…letting the fire burn” is way, way biased. They didn’t deliberately do shit. They were under no duty to answer, and they didn’t. They didn’t deliberately do anything any more as you deliberately let the fire burn, too.
No, it’s because libertarians are notorious for their insistence on ideological purity.
Libertarians are well known for their insistence that the private sector can do anything better than the government Because They Say So. And for their insistence that free market solutions exist even when they don’t.
Libertarianism is an extreme movement.
Can I offer to pay up my car insurance arrearages when I get into a car crash? Pretty please.
Again, fires spread. This wasn’t in a fireplace and they didn’t have any magical assurance it couldn’t grow out of control.
You are an extortionist at the least. And a terrorist if you offer other people water and leave me to die in order to intimidate the other people into paying. And I’d feel perfectly justified in such a situation in killing you and taking your water.
Yes, they did. They refused his offer to pay which meant it wasn’t about the money.
Wait. Better yet. Can I get a car insurance policy to cover an accident I just got into?
Flo: Thanks for calling Progressive, how may I help you?
Rumor: Sweetness. Can I sign up for car insurance right after I get in a car crash?
Flo: Um, no. Sorry, policies have to be purchased prior to an event in order for the event to be covered.
Rumor: But I’m offering to pay you for a policy NOW! I’ll even pay a little more!
Flo: That’s not how this works
Rumor: Terrorist.
The setup hasn’t been abandoned, it was explicitly set up this way by the county residents who voted on it in 2002. They actively chose this setup, not the firefighters who keep getting summoned outside of the area they’re originally supposed to protect.
Because they know from past experience that the offer to pay is horseshit. Somehow, once the fire’s out, the resident goes right back to their “Get offa mah land, revenoooer!” stance.