Garden variety Libertarian. I voted for Obama. I’ve voted previously for both Democrats and Republicans.
I think they had every right to let the house burn down because it wasn’t the first time the moron had started a fire and not paid the fee. Last paragraph has relevant details, the rest of the post is worthless. He had a chimney fire 3 years ago, also conveniently “forgot” the fee, they put the fire out and let him pay for it - not pay for the true cost of putting out the fire, oh no, for the $75 annual fee. :rolleyes: Sounds like the guy got a pretty good deal, huh?
How, after that is his behavior excusable a second time? You don’t see uninsured drivers wailing for Geico to replace their totaled car after an accident, do you? You take the risk, you deserve the outcome.
Life and death wasn’t at stake here; it was the guy’s house with no people trapped inside of it.
I’m a liberal, and I marked that the firefighters made the best decision they could have, but I also think that the county made an absolutely terrible decision that led to that. If things were set up sanely, then the firefighting fee would be a mandatory tax, and the firefighters would be required to fight the fire.
Quoth RTFirefly:
If he didn’t have cash on hand and on the spot, then for all practical purposes, he didn’t offer to pay. When the firefighters accept offers like this, more often than not, the money never materializes, and even when it does, it takes many years and much work to get it.
This is my feeling as well. I grew up in a rural area that was covered by a local volunteer fire department. This was not an opt-in situation; everyone paid for it via taxes. Having a situation where certain houses have fire coverage and others don’t seems completely insane to me.
I’m a Liberal, and I think the Fire Department did the best they *had *to do. I really think the best answer would’ve been to work to put the fire out and then bill Cranick… but, of course, there’s no guarantee that Cranick would pay *that *bill, either, so it’s unlikely that they would’ve gotten recompensed for the considerable effort it would’ve cost. So, no, I don’t know what the hell should’ve been done.
However, I do believe that this situation highlights one of the failures of the Libertarian philosophy. If Libertarians got their way, I’d be willing to bet we’d see this situation, and many others like it, all the time.
I’ve been a paid FF for over twenty years and I can’t imagine standing by and watching a home burn while the owner pleads for me to put it out. If I did that I’d have to cover every mirror in my house. For all they knew, the guy might’ve been flat broke and was about to lose what little he had.
Kurt Vonnegut once said: ‘‘I can think of no more stirring symbol of man’s humanity to man than a fire truck.’’ Schmaltzy, sure, but true enough I think. These fellows seem to have lost the thread of that.
Both. Although I understand why the firefighters did not and will not criticize their decision. Legitimate ambivalence – not neutrality, not uncaring, but (literally) having conflicting feelings about something – is weird, and not something I encounter often.
Yes, I’d still think I made the correct decision. Your hypothetical indicates that we, as firefighters, are terrible at our jobs.
Yes, because in my competing hypothetical, firefighting is a government provided service, funded via whatever method of billing is decided upon (usually a tax, I suppose). To me, this is a prime example of both community (same root as commune) and why government exists in the first place.
Again, objectively, I have to say that the community made a group decision to have things this way. Cranick, as an individual, has now had to eat the fruit of that group decision.
I’m flamingly liberal, and I think this is a crappy way to run a county, but seriously folks, we’re talking about $75 a year, and an asshole who’d already screwed the fire department over once. Fuck him.
I’ve absolutely no doubt that the firefighters on the scene would have sprang into action if there were anyone inside the house, but they’re under no obligation to risk their lives to protect property he CHOSE not to protect himself.
You’ll note that I didn’t lay blame anywhere or on anyone; in fact, as I’ve said twice in two posts now, I’m (literally) ambivalent about the situation. So now it’s three for three.
The laying blame and corresponding outrage…Good Lord! That’s all in your head…
Until people get the picture that freeloading does not pay off. I’m not libertarian, I do lean conservative, and I think the fire dept made the right call. They gave this guy a pass once before, so he can’t even argue ignorance for not paying the bill. He tried to beat the system.
You are absolutely blaming a bad outcome on the decision made by the community. Unless your reference to eating fruit was literal and involved some aspect of the story heretofore unheard. Or unless you don’t consider the loss of the home to be a bad outcome. Which is it?
The decision by the community was a bad one in that it allowed people to opt out. When it’s something like a fire that can affect property or lives other than the insured’s, opting out is really not an option. It’s why car insurance is mandatory: you can hurt others on the road, not just yourself.
Sorry, perhaps I misread your “What?” and “Good Lord!” inclusions incorrectly. To me, they indicated outrage, albeit of a minor variety. You choose an appropriate descriptor and I’ll accept it.
Hmmm. Are those the only options you can come up with? Really? Perhaps you should put just a teensy bit more thought into it.
Amazing that anybody thinks this was a proper way to act. This wasn’t insurance. This was a public service. The government shouldn’t be in the business of providing pay to play services, that’s something for the private sector.
The worst part of this is that firefighters, or anyone else, would not take reasonable steps to put out a house fire, under any circumstance. All people are obligated to help in such a circumstance. Government officials even more so.
The only downside to the fire department exinquishing that blaze was a potential loss of fees in the future. That could have been corrected by implementing a new system of funding the fire department. What is the means of correcting for the loss of a home? I have never heard of another case where fire departments refused to assist in extinquishing a fire outside their district, or over a question of payment.
This incident brings dishonor to a noble profession. Firefighters are the people who run into burning buildings, not out of them. No fireman I know, volunteer or professional, would have stood by and watched a house burn down without attempting to help.
I lived not to far from Obion County for several years. That type of arrangement isn’t uncommon in rural areas that depend either on volunteer fire departments, or contracting with the nearest city.
It’s no secret that you have to sign up your home or business to be protected. It’s no secret when the dues are paid, and it’s no secret that fire departments have in the past (and will in the future) refused to serve those who don’t pay.
Sure, it’s a stupid way to do things, but Crannick knew what he had to do, and he didn’t do it.
The government shouldn’t be in that business, but in this case, they were. Given that they were, I can’t fault the firefighters for acknowledging that reality.