You mean those people who can’t get help because the funds to help them are spent putting out fires for people like Gene Crannick, who can afford it but decide freeloading is the better option?
Missed edit window.
“They did, however, come out when Cranick’s neighbor – who’d already paid the fee – called 911 because he worried that the fire might spread to his property. Once they arrived, members of the South Fulton department stood by and watched Cranick’s home burn; they sprang into action only when the fire reached the neighbor’s property.”
““What moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?””
"But Foster’s colleague Kevin Williamson took the opposite view. Cranick’s fellow residents in the rural stretches of Obion County had no fire protection until the county established the $75 fee in 1990. As Williamson explained: “The South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.”
Ahh so my days of not having to treat people with out insurance may soon be at hand! What a wonderful world!
The article has also been updated in the link.
Do you really understand? You apparently don’t understand that the firefighters are agents of the municipality, said municipality in which the “victim” in question does not reside and whose structure the purported victim elected not to enroll in the program provided for fire protection. The fire department is bound by the laws and regulations governing their deployment. In case you haven’t noticed by now, fires are dangerous. I’ll take a wild stab in the dark here and suggest that the reason fire departments even exist is because fires are dangerous. The equipment does not belong to the individual firefighters and the decision to put the firefighters’ lives on the line has to be made with the laws and regulations in mind. Once it was ascertained that there was no human life at jeopardy, the issue was over owing to the prior decision of the purported victim to not participate in the program. Had his house been in the municipality governing this particular fire department, there would be no question about protecting the structure.
Yeah, and there are a whole lot of times where the ER can’t even get the collection agencies to recoup them any costs from visits like that. The firefighters still save human lives when they’re in danger, but I can sympathize with them to not want to risk their own lives for the property of people not in their district who don’t/won’t pay for their fees ahead of time - repeatedly in this case, apparently.
Hits the nail right on the head.
We’re having a municipal election here right now (go Nenshi!), and you sound like all the candidates who tell us they’re going to increase services and lower taxes. Talk about magical thinking.
Is there anyone here who thinks that $75 is the actual cost of firefighters fighting a fire? Everyone pools their $75 per year, and that covers the costs of the fire department fighting a handful of fires per year. I could get on board with the idea that if you haven’t paid your $75 in advance, you pay the bill that comes in the mail after they come out and fight your fire; hint - it’s going to be higher than $75. 
(Except then how do you get the deadbeats to pay that?)
Smash a window a day till they pay up.
Hey, it’s still better than a completely burnt-out house.
Don’t they have collection agencies or wage garnishment laws in Tennessee?
In fact, you don’t get to drive on the public roads in the first place unless you already have car insurance. This is because driving on the public roads involves externalities (i.e. the risk of damage and injury to others) which are inherent to the situation and are too large to shrug off as minor side effects.
Until someone discovers a non-spreading form of fire, fire protection inherently entails similar externalities, and is similarly unsuited for a pure free-market take-it-or-leave-it purchasing decision.
ajb867, let me ask this. If residents outside this municipality learn that, while there’s a $75 a year fee for fire protectiont, if you don’t pay that fee, the fire department will go ahead and put out your fire anyway. These residents also know that the fire department can bill them, but since there’s no convenient way to collect that money, whatever that bill says can also be ignored.
What happens?
What happens is that probably nobody pays. Oh sure you’ll get the kind hearted who have money to spare. Most people are either lazy or apathetic or free loading or evil and so most people won’t pay.
And why should they? Under the system described above you basically get one free pass at a fire.
So what would you have the fire department do? Continue operating at a loss until it goes bankrupt? Then no one gets fire protection. That doesn’t solve the problem, does it?
Not to mention the lack of rational analysis.
Anarcho-capitalists have proposed alternative solutions to the externalities problem. I don’t find their arguments convincing, but at least they are offering arguments, not just simple-minded rants which ignore the issue.
That seems extremely dubious to me. Perhaps the statement over the phone would not create an enforceable contract, but Crannick’s act of allowing the firemen onto his property for the purpose of fighting the fire and the firemen proceeding to do so would.
Change the “system” you morons! I.E. make it mandatory, like TAXES. What the OP was getting at but it hasn’t been said yet is that Fire Depts, like Police Depts, and Hospitals should be basic municipal services that Everyone is entitled to, and cannot opt out of.
I suspect that you wouldn’t have much luck imposing a mandatory tax upon people who aren’t residents of your area.
Could they get the people who write EULAs to work out a contract like that? 
The residents of the county voted down a poll measure in 2002 to do exactly that. The cost to them in increased property taxes? $0.13/year. Thirteen cents per year.
Actually it does not. When a big forest fire occurs ,firefighters come from all over to fight it. When a disaster happens, all jurisdictions will help.
Wait until firefighting is privatized. Firemen will make a lot less money . They will be resentful. The more money you have, the better fire protection you will have.
What about volunteer fire fighters? Would they feel right about watching a home burn down because of 75 bucks not paid.
We used to have the whole town pitch in when a building caught fire. What are we becoming?
A bunch of Gene Crannicks who say things like
We used to understand that if you want a service available, you pay for it either all together or at least individually.
I dunno about the legal situation in that jurisdiction, but here the firefighters would have a good case for recovery on restitutionary or quasi-contractual principles, regardless of the contractual technicalities. The applicable legal jargon is quantum meruit.
The underlying notion: to prevent someone from being unjustly enriched by another person’s services (in this case, the fire-fighters’) in circumstances where justice and good concience demand that restitution be made.
Let’s be clear here. It’s not the fire department that will go bankrupt. it’s the municipality as the fire department is a department (the name kind of clues you into that) of the municipality.