what a horrible mentality to have.

I know it costs money, but this seems pretty "set back retarded" to have the ability but to choose not to because of such a off the wall policy. Include that in the taxes they do pay, why make it separate. If I was that guy I would be secretly plotting the flammability of the fire station.

If the pay as you go was universal, I could see the state's (gov't actor's) argument making some sense, but the fact of the matter is we pay for all sorts of services of which we do not get direct benefit, such as public schools, drug enforcement, war on _______, but we still have to pay or else we're put in jail. Otherwise, the state's argument rings hollow and even cruel.

Since when is the fire department private? I was under the impression they were covered under the DHS?

What a crock. It's a Municipality thing, meaning that there may be no state or federal mandate that fire protection be provided in Tennessee.

Ron Paul 2012!

Boy I hope that's sarcasm.

You don't find anything wrong with this logic?

1.You're consenting to threat of violence for your resources. Extortion.

2. By now, can we all admit:

Our schools are lackluster at best.
Drug enforcement is counter-intuitive since drug abuse is a medical issue.
The "war on terror " and drugs, etc. are bullshit. Political props.

Imagine money doesn't exist. Everyone gets what they need cause of an unknown equilibrium force of space & time.

Would it have been cruel for this scenario to take place?

>> ^triumphtigercub:

but the fact of the matter is we pay for all sorts of services of which we do not get direct benefit, such as public schools, drug enforcement, war on _______, but we still have to pay or else we're put in jail. Otherwise, the state's argument rings hollow and even cruel.

Makes perfect sense to me. If the taxes aren't enough to pay for fire protection, then the fee needs to be covered somehow.

The most disturbing thing about this is knowing that when someone calls the fire department there, they check your payment status before moving out. Jeez, what if there was a data entry mistake or something? What if someone died?

I will start off by saying that it is wrong to let the house just burn down, but this moron shouldn't have gotten away with simply giving them $75 when they showed up.

It really is the same way that you can't just get into an accident and then call Geico and say "Here's $140, please fix my car."

They should have shown up, put the fire out, and then charge him however much it cost for the whole operation.

I don't see the connection to the Tea Party.

@lantern53 they want to privatize and dismantle everything government does.

This is what privatizing the fire department would look like. You don't pay your bill, they let your house burn.

^The more principled, pre-Freedomworks 2007 Tea Partiers, anyway. The movement has since morphed into an unfocused blob of right wing rage, so I can see how someone would not be able to make the connection.

Also, this is part of a long intra-sift discussion. You can find some earlier comments from that discussion here if you care: http://videosift.com/search?q=user+fees&t=c&u&o&vmin&vmax&sh&l&n&b&submit=Search&pg=1

Hmm, so does the fire department not receive any government funding?

This policy has been in effect for 20 years, so it wasn't like it was an unexpected shock. Is $50/75 per year too much to pay for emergency fire service? Is it worth the risk? If they have an a la carte system, this guy gambled and lost. Sucks to be him, but he chose to not opt-in.

That said, the fire department's policy should be to save lives, put the fire out, and worry about the billing later.

As much as I prefer smaller government, I believe all emergency services should be government services, paid for by taxes.

Why not just come out and charge him a shitload of money but still extinguish the fire? Who stands to gain from this mans house burning down when they could have reached some kind of agreement? Having your house burning seems like a pretty good incentive to pay whatever is asked of you.

I suspect that they couldn't get the taxpayers to vote to increase their taxes countywide to pay for the service. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that this guy voted down the tax.

He admitted his son (son-in-lsw?) didn't pay the annual fee either. This is a family mentality that has been going on for years, and this guy thought he could get away with it.

I agree that this is the Tea Party mentality of raging at the gov'mint for taxing them to death, reaching into their pockets. Until they need whatever it is the gov'mint could do -- like meat inspections, help in responding to a potential disease epidemic, or whatever affects them personally.

Having said all this, it seems that the fire department should change their policy to say -- you didn't pay the annual fee? Then we will charge you the cost of the operation (as noted above) and we will slap a lien on your property and evict you if you don't pay it off in a reasonable time.

I'll bet the insurance company changes their policy, too -- that if your fire fee isn't paid, your insurance policy is invalid. Or maybe you have to show proof of payment every year or you immediately lose your insurance.

I really dislike this man and his attitude. Seems to me he should be ashamed of himself for his stupid actions.

Fire insurance premiums are affected by things like distance from fire services. I would hope the insurance company sues the city.

And this is why you don't make such a basic service an option. If everyone pays, it'll be cheaper for everyone, better funded and ultimately better fire-protection from everyone. The fact they waited for the neighbor's yard to catch fire is insane, he paid, they were there it should have never caught fire in the first place. As others mentioned if they're going to have this sort of system in place just charge those who don't pay a few hundred dollars when they need to come out. It still punishes the dumb-asses that didn't pay for it in the first place but its not so vindictive and cruel that it allows for all of someone's possessions to burn up, including their pets, while the fire department sit there and watches.

Marine G said it all. Put out the fire and charge the guy later on.

bareboards2 wrote: I agree that this is the Tea Party mentality of raging at the gov'mint for taxing them to death, reaching into their pockets. Until they need whatever it is the gov'mint could do -- like meat inspections, help in responding to a potential disease epidemic, or whatever affects them personally.

Libertarianism nor small government conservatism means anarchy. Some are questioning all gov'mint spenditures--and they have every right to---while the rest of us are furious at things like...


Welfare recipients blowing tax money in Vegas

and this

USA Today: “$162 million in stimulus funds not disclosed”

and this

$700,000 of taxpayer money to create joke-telling robot. (siftbot would've done it for half that).

The idea that you shouldn't care about the widow across town that can't pay for her food, or the child that goes to school starving everyday so he can't learn...or the family who's house burns down has to be beaten into you.

It starts in kindergarten and it goes your entire lifetime. It's beaten into you that you have to care about yourself. It's not a natural thing...we are programmed by genetics to care about other human beings...that has to be beaten out of us so we can accept this kind of crap.

This little parable has sparked a *quality discussion.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This. I believe in the social contract. And the common good. More Libraries, less Blockbuster Videos.

>> ^Yogi:

The idea that you shouldn't care about the widow across town that can't pay for her food, or the child that goes to school starving everyday so he can't learn...or the family who's house burns down has to be beaten into you.
It starts in kindergarten and it goes your entire lifetime. It's beaten into you that you have to care about yourself. It's not a natural thing...we are programmed by genetics to care about other human beings...that has to be beaten out of us so we can accept this kind of crap.

it is my understanding from listening to the video that the fee applies to fire protection services to those living outside of city limits. While it does seem 'assholish' of the city to do, it makes some amount of sense to charge for a service to someone who is outside the normal fire department service range. The city provides the fire department services to those who are within the city limits as part of the peoples tax money, and since the city does not receive money from those who live outside the limits, they have to cover the cost somehow.

Don't get me wrong, I think that this totally sucks, but its more of a problem of not having the right answer to a problem. There has to be a better way to solve the cost issue other than an "insurance" plan with the fire department.

So a public fire department fails and the private sector gets blamed? You guys are too much.

If this was a private FD I'd have little issue with this but, since it's not, they need to get this sorted out.

In the meantime, though, they'd do well to get some volunteer FDs going in these areas where you may or may not get help.

F this home owner..F the fire department, and F that city for such a stupid privatization (zomg that's a word! I just spell checked it) . As someone who lives in this country, on this planet..I would SUE them for allowing all that crap to burn further polluting what little clean air we have left!

If there is a major fire, it doesn't matter who has paid what, you put it out so it doesn't do any further damage and THEN figure things out! Leaving that house to burn caused a ton of pollution and quite a bit of danger that it could spread or harm other people and animals. I had to laugh about the fire truck that was "waiting"..waiting for it to spread to one of the houses that have paid for fire protection. Listen, you wanna protect my house? you put his shit out BEFORE it starts setting my roof on fire thank you very much.

I saw this on TYT first and I think it was a pretty good one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJyjNiL4zZg

many people are saying they should put it out ,then worry about the bill. if they did that, then no one would pay !! then there would be no money for the fire dept. hence no fire dept at all. this seems extremely self evident.

>> ^LarsaruS:

I saw this on TYT first and I think it was a pretty good one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJyjNiL4zZg


Wow, I was expecting Cenk to turn green and rip through his clothes... I've never seen him so angry before.

>> ^robdot:

many people are saying they should put it out ,then worry about the bill. if they did that, then no one would pay !! then there would be no money for the fire dept. hence no fire dept at all. this seems extremely self evident.


Even if that were true, that doesn't negate one's responsibility as a human being. But of course you're wrong; by your logic, all private utilities would now be bankrupt.

huh?

Prayer works better! Who needs police and fire departments?!

>> ^robdot:

many people are saying they should put it out ,then worry about the bill. if they did that, then no one would pay !! then there would be no money for the fire dept. hence no fire dept at all. this seems extremely self evident.


Seriously, -think- before you make such assinine proclamations. If you can't do that, then try a bit of research, googling, reading, or ask a trusted friend for help.

There are plenty of places that do work precisely that way (put out the fire and send a much larger bill after the fact). If the bill is not paid, the city/county can go to court and get a lien on the house. In many cases, the owner can and will lose the house, which will end up being sold to pay the bill. But even that is far less stupid and damaging than letting a house burn to the ground, which benefits nobody at all and increases risks for many.

this is why i'm blown the fuck away regarding why people think adding a public health care option would be bad. "oh noes socialism!"

fuck that. police is socialized, fire is socialized, why not health care? "i don't want to pay taxes for Joe who does something stupid and causes injury to himself." but you sure as fuck want the fire dept to put out the fire Joe caused because he doesn't know how to deep-fry a turkey. it just doesn't make any goddamned sense.

i'd much rather pay my taxes and know that if i snap my ankle walking down the icy steps on my way to work that i can go to a hospital, get it taken care of and move on with life.
just the same way as i currently know that if a fire starts up in my apartment complex, i can count on the fire department to show up and put it out.

imagine if every time you called the police or fire departments they made you sit in a waiting room and fill out a form, then 3 hours later when they're ready to see you they fix the problem and send you home with a bill.

--

related to the video, they really should have written in a contingency plan if they do have an out-of-city-limits/out-of-service-area caveat. something to the effect of "$75/year to be covered without question, $5,000 fine for services rendered if you're not part of the 'extended service' program."

either way, put out the fucking fire and deal with the monetary politics afterwards.

--

edit: holy shit @ the TYT video. i've never seen Cenk that angry before.

can't see comments.

im a 30 year pro firefighter. no one wants to pay for fire protection until theres a fire, same with ambulances. you cant bill people after the fact. how the hell you gonna bill someone who just had a house fire 5000.00????? why would they pay? 75 bucks for fire protection is almost nothing. the townships can longer afford to provide many of these services. the city did them a big favor by offering this protection. there are many people across the country who can get into their city limits, but dont want to pay city taxes. then, theres a fire. or medical emergency, and guess what? they burn. happens all the time. in my city there are houses right beside each other and some are in and some are not. by choice. we have maps to show us the corp line. and the addresses of those not in the city limits. i cant take my dept out of service to help you, and leave the citizens who do pay unprotected. or use up their resources. if you want depts to protect more people, you must pay up front for more vehicles, equipment, personnel , training, etc. extremely self evident.

Seriously, anyone comparing this scenario with the privatisation of currently public services (with free market competition) are clearly confused.

This as others have pointed out is still a public service just not paid with their other taxes. It isn't like they will allow someone else to compete by setting up another fire department in town.

If I cried when I didn't get compensation for my house after it gets broken into and wrecked by a robber because I didn't get home/contents insurance then will this be all over the news?
Like the man said, he forgot to pay. The difference here is that there can be lives at risk because of a fire as opposed to finding the house wrecked after-the-fact. Something could have been done at the time to save those animals.

Fair enough if that fire department will not provide a service that someone did not pay for - but if this is how you want to do it, do not stop someone else from setting up their own fire fighting service so that if *you* won't save that house or those pets, they can!
And in return they can either operate as a charity or as a business and charge x amount with the option of various payment plans. In addition, people can then take out fire insurance plans that will pay for this service should the time comes.

There are people here commenting on how we need to protect idiots from themselves but how are people going to learn to look after themselves when they rely on someone else to do it?
This man had a responsibility to look after his home, his family and pets. It's up to him to remember to pay insurance etc, but it is unfortunate in this world that he was not able to call another fire service who would have come to help him put out the fire.

If you are saying that some people are too retarded to pay for their own insurance or to look after themselves, you should also ban them from having children and pets! If they can't look after themselves it would not be ethical for you to allow them to take responsibility for someone else... Why not when you are all for using force anyway. What difference does it make if you take something else away from others?

>> ^robdot:

im a 30 year pro firefighter. [...] we have maps to show us the corp line. and the addresses of those not in the city limits. i cant take my dept out of service to help you, and leave the citizens who do pay unprotected. or use up their resources. if you want depts to protect more people, you must pay up front for more vehicles, equipment, personnel , training, etc. extremely self evident.


I think the problem's that the FD drove out, told the guy to his face that there was nothing they would do (not could do - that's different), got out the marshmallows, and had a party while the guy's life burned down around him. They were there. They could have helped.

How about this? You're getting beat up by a mugger. An off-duty cop walks by. He decides he doesn't want the overtime pay so he just keeps walking. You end up in the hospital with four less teeth, internal bleeding, and broken bones. Is that acceptable?

What happened to the idea of volunteer fire departments ... its working at my place..

I'm portuguese, and the VAST majority of fire depts. here are voluntary (I think there's 1 or 2 in the whole country that are not).

I don't necessarily think that's the best model, because being a fire fighter should definitely be a full time job, and require a lot of constant training. But at least I KNOW the fire fighters in my city are doing it for the right reasons, and would never do something so callous.

Edit: Oh.. and I find it fucking disturbing that in the US it's possible for someone NOT to be covered by the protection of a fire department. That is just plain stupid. I know that it's a pretty big country, but still...

I went to watch the Cenk link.

It took two hours for the fire to go from two burn barrels to the house.

How the heck did the animals die? Why didn't the homeowners take them out of the house?

They just stood there themselves and watched?

I also wonder -- they say he didn't pay the $75 fee. Some report that he "forgot" to pay. The fee has been in place for 20 years. How many years did he pay? 19 years, and then "forgot" to pay this year? Or he didn't pay for NINETEEN YEARS? That fact needs to be determined.

As the professional firefighter says, this happens all the time. Why is this time different? Because there are pictures of it. So it makes the news. So we can link on it and discuss.

Aren't these the user fees what you've been pining for? This guy isn't a victim, he's liberated! >> ^blankfist:

So a public fire department fails and the private sector gets blamed? You guys are too much.

It certainly has nothing to do with the private sector. That much we have to admit. And stop pinning this on user fees being at fault. Obviously it was the bureaucrats that caused this fuckstorm.

User fees are the red herring here.

That much we have to admit. And stop pinning this on user fees being at fault. Obviously it was the bureaucrats that caused this fuckstorm.

User fees are the red herring here.

It's not the bureaucrats, it's the natural result of minimal government types, like the Libertarians, and individual responsibility.

Minimal government with fire services paid for through user fees. That naturally leads to exactly this situation where individuals can choose to give up protection by not paying the user fee.

When did this guys individual freedoms being respected become the fault of big government?

@bcglorf, I'd like to introduce you to "correlation does not imply causation".

When people don't pay for life insurance and pass away do you blame the small government types?

When people don't pay for life insurance and pass away do you blame the small government types?

You blame it on the people for not getting life insurance.
Same thing here, blame it on the guy for not paying for fire protection.

The difference is the small government types are the ones DEMANDING that fire protection be optional. This circumstance is EXACTLY what is to be expected when agreeing to fund fire fighting with user fees. Not everyone will pay those fees, and so not everyone will have those services.

If you want to insist that the fire fighters should have put this guys house out anyways you either want them to do it at cost to themselves, or you want to do away with user fees and "force" everyone to pay taxes for public fire fighting services.

Except that firefighting began as a private industry. The industry was reformed and firefighting was made public because it was a horrible idea. Seriously, can no one learn anything from history?

And to me this is an example of how "small goverment" is a disasterous idea in some sitations. Why do you think this township or county is forcing residents to individually contract with the adjacent city for fire support? Why do you think they haven't organized a volunteer fire department? Does it take a genius to figure out that the local county could have levied a tax and negotiated an agreement with the city fire department? Is there any other reasonable explanation than the "small government" mentality?

And finally, on the matter of public services and the greater good. I'm sick and tired of people acting as though they don't benefit from paying taxes for schools if they don't have kids or they don't benefit from any other public service they pay for through taxes and that they might not directly use.

Just how successful are you going to be in life, as an individual, if you exist in a society without a general population that has basic education and health? People want to believe that if they make money by starting a business or succeeding in industry that they've done it through their own individual wit and skill. The truth is that we have no individual opportunities for success without the support of the communities we live in. We all benefit individually when we are strong as a community. You cannot seperate yourself or your success from your community. You cannot succeed unless your community provides you the opportunities.

Fucking grow up and stop acting like 3 year olds protecting your pile of toys.

>> ^EMPIRE:
I'm portuguese, and the VAST majority of fire depts. here are voluntary (I think there's 1 or 2 in the whole country that are not).
I don't necessarily think that's the best model, because being a fire fighter should definitely be a full time job, and require a lot of constant training. But at least I KNOW the fire fighters in my city are doing it for the right reasons, and would never do something so callous.
Edit: Oh.. and I find it fucking disturbing that in the US it's possible for someone NOT to be covered by the protection of a fire department. That is just plain stupid. I know that it's a pretty big country, but still...
people outside cities are covered, usually by volunteers. who are farther away and may take longer to get there. because they dont have people already on duty.

Only the rich get fire protection!

I don't get it, do municipal taxes not cover this?

Red herring my ass. This guy is living your dream. He is in an unincorporated municipality under very little (if any) government - it's a "minarchy". He wasn't coerced by the government into paying for fire services, and he didn't, and his house burned down. This is exactly the type of government you've spoken of many times. You've even specifically said you'd like to see fee based fire departments. Own it.

>> ^blankfist:

It certainly has nothing to do with the private sector. That much we have to admit. And stop pinning this on user fees being at fault. Obviously it was the bureaucrats that caused this fuckstorm.
User fees are the red herring here.

@dystopianfuturetoday, let's be clear, I'm all for fire departments being service fee based, but this man was paying taxes. As far as I'm concerned the minimal the government should offer is fire, police, roads and jails, and if this man is paying local, state and property tax, he was due this coverage.

This is a failure of the government because of that.

where were the citizen volunteers for free fire protection for all to save this guys house? oh yeah, they were all on the internet arguing with people about how someone else should risk their lives to put out fires for free.

Hey blankfist, have you ever looked at a property tax bill? There is a list of services provided, generally.

If the fire department doesn't have a levy funding it, then it doesn't get funded.

Most communities vote to have a levy or not. This area clearly voted to not pay for fire service.

Look at your property tax bill. Or don't you own any property?

>> ^blankfist:

@dystopianfuturetoday, let's be clear, I'm all for fire departments being service fee based

Then the rest of your comment is the real red herring.

If fire departments are fee based, you have to think about what happens when someone can't pay the fee. You either a) let their house burn down, or b) put it out, and just raise everyone else's rates to cover the shortfall. Both are less than ideal, to say the least.

Now, you did say you think he's entitled to fire service because he pays his taxes. Well, his taxes don't cover the cost of fire service. For that he has a service fee, which he did not pay.

Are you saying that the county should raise everyone's property taxes, rather than charge a service fee?

@NetRunner:

Who owns a home but can't afford 6.25/month?

See that's when you go and burn down the fire dept. building for not doing their fucking jobs. Obviously, you don't need them around if they don't even do anything, so burn it down and build a homeless shelter where it used to be. Fuckers.

ok, listen up people, first of all, the guy didnt live in the city. if you live in the city you get police, fire, water, sewer. roads, snow plows, etc. ok? if you dont live in the city, and dont pay taxes. you dont get those services. the city doesnt just run out and pave your road for ya because your truck gets stuck.. see? so they offered people who lived outside the corp limit a very reasonable fee for fire protection. 75 bucks. to help pay for equipment etc. for the extra protection outside their jurisdiction. you cant even fill up the truck for 75 bucks. a modern tower truck costs 500.000 to 850,000 dollars. the trucks and the manpower and the water and the equipment belong to the citizens of the town they are from. the taxpayers. not the firemen. if i take a firetruck or ambulance and provide servie to someone outside my jurisdiction, and a taxpayer needs me or my men or my truck or ambulance. do you think the taxpayer will be pissed off?? oh yea he will, and ill get fired. the citizens made this guy an offer, he declined. ill bet you a million dollars this guy has been offered the chance to get into the city but didnt want to pay the water ,sewer, city tax etc. now the guys son is in jail because he assaulted the fire chief. idiots times 2.also, they set the house on fire burning trash outside. if they lived in town the fire dept would make them put that out.or put it out for them. but they dont want that , so they live outside of town. where they can burn brush if they damn well want to. see? the firemen were doing what the citizens told them to do. the citizens run the fire dept. the citizens own everything in the dept.

I can't think of another country where this can happen. Not even Iraq!

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I can't think of another country where this can happen. Not even Iraq!


Um, Iraq right now is a bad example. This couldn't happen there because there is no fire service to charge a fee for in the first place. They are still working on getting their volunteer police forces together.

This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with privatization. I know a couple others have already pointed this out, but I think it needs another post. If I live in a city and my taxes go towards my city's FD, I don't want them going out of city limits (unless it's a mutual aid agreement call) to provide service to people who don't help fund them. You can't live out in the county and expect the nearby city's taxpayers to pay for your fire protection and utilize that city's personnel and apparatus when you haven't contributed any funds yourself which pay for all of that. If this "victim" wanted fire protection he should have moved within city limits or paid the $75 fee, or even organized a volunteer department.

And, wow, Keith Olbermann. He pays county taxes, NOT the city taxes which pay for the department that wouldn't respond.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Who owns a home but can't afford 6.25/month?


Seems to me that in the middle of a huge recession with high unemployment, coupled with a crash in housing, probably a lot of people.

Mostly though, it's not the $75/yr I'm talking about, it's the question of what you do when people don't pay it, intentionally or not.

Do you let the house burn, or do you offer to put out the fire at some higher fee? What if they can't pay that higher fee? Again, do you just let the house burn? If you put the fire out without receiving payment, how do you keep your budget balanced (or turn a profit)?

>> ^werbwerb:

This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with privatization.

How would privatized fire departments work differently? What would they do if people didn't or couldn't pay?

If they put out all fires regardless of whether people have paid, why not just bake it into people's property taxes? Why make payment some sort of optional thing?

If it's a matter of wanting to charge more for rural residents, just make them pay a higher property tax rate for living outside city limits.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^werbwerb:
This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with privatization.
How would privatized fire departments work differently? What would they do if people didn't or couldn't pay?
If they put out all fires regardless of whether people have paid, why not just bake it into people's property taxes? Why make payment some sort of optional thing?
If it's a matter of wanting to charge more for rural residents, just make them pay a higher property tax rate for living outside city limits.


Why are we speculating about how a privatized department would work? This wasn't a private department and FDs aren't going to be privatized anytime soon.

That's an option, however I suspect people living out in the counties would fight tooth and nail not to have their taxes raised even if it meant fire protection from the nearest city. These people are adults and can make their own decisions. If they want to live in a place with no volunteer department and choose not to pay a nominal fee to a nearby city they know the risk. It sucks that this guy's house burned down, but him trying to get national sympathy on TV and Keith Olbermann twisting it to rail against the "Tea Party" is just silly.

I'm unsure why people are comparing fire department service fees to car insurance. The fire department does not pay you to rebuild your house when it burns down; that is part of homeowners insurance. The fee is for maintenance and operations of the fire department. Why shouldn't he be able to give them the $75 when they arrive at the property to put out the fire? Because he hasn't paid in the past? What difference does that make? Would they not have put out the fire if he hadn't paid in twelve years, but paid only this year's fee? This service fee is not homeowners insurance and is not comparable to car insurance.

Why shouldn't he be able to give them the $75 when they arrive at the property to put out the fire? Because he hasn't paid in the past? What difference does that make?

Because it costs more than $75 per fire. It costs $75 per home to put out the fires that happen in a year. There's gotta be less than 1 in 100 homes that catch fire in a year, so even on the low-end the cost is $7500 minimum. The real cost per fire is probably upward of $10k.

What do you figure the odds are that the FD is gonna be able to collect upwards of $10k from a guy who just lost his home, and before that refused to pay $75? You can't charge for fire service after the fact because of the huge number of people that would, again, refuse to pay after the fire was out.

>> ^werbwerb:

Why are we speculating about how a privatized department would work? This wasn't a private department and FDs aren't going to be privatized anytime soon.

...

twisting it to rail against the "Tea Party" is just silly.

If privatization is a total red herring, please describe how it would work differently.

Further, I would ask you to characterize the Tea Party's policy preferences when it comes to government services. Would they prefer this subscription-based service idea, or would they prefer a universal fire service paid for with property taxes?

I'd also like you to tell me what you think should happen to people when they don't pay. Should the fire department let the house burn down?

Yes, I feel sorry for the guy. But geez, he had the option to pay to have city service extended to his county home, and didn't. He was a dumbass and burnt trash and caught his house on fire. Now he's a victim? Please.

The victim mentality is truly what's wrong with America.

I find it interesting that blankfist is avoiding the traditional libertarian mantra of personal responsibility 'you didn't pay for fire protection, so stop crying'. ridesallyride, werweb and imstellar have no problems toeing the party line, so what's with your resistance to this fundamental libertarian trope? Do you have some reservations in this context? Are you developing social consciousness? Or are you just stuck in blame the government for everything mode?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I find it interesting that blankfist is avoiding the traditional libertarian mantra of personal responsibility 'you didn't pay for fire protection, so stop crying'. ridesallyride, werweb and imstellar have no problems toeing the party line, so what's with your resistance to this fundamental libertarian trope? Do you have some reservations in this context? Are you developing social consciousness? Or are you just stuck in blame the government for everything mode?


I find it even more interesting having gone back and found a previous thread where blankfist and I went over exactly this, only in theory. He stated:

This shows me that fire departments can run effectively and have run effectively with realistically little funding, and I think it goes without saying that we all agree they are necessary.

The question is "how do we fund them"? I say there are voluntary ways to do that such as my previous example of a user fee, which is they'd bill you for their services.

And later made clear what is meant by user fees:
These are nothing like income tax or sales tax. User fees are fees paid directly for a service.

So, there it is in black and white. Blankfist's dream world was realized here in this small instance, with fire services moved from mandatory property taxes, to optional user fees.

I guess his objections are that in practice it looks a lot worse than it did in theory. Presumably in the theory world volunteers save the day for those that opt to not pay for fire services, in practice, not so much.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I find it interesting that blankfist is avoiding the traditional libertarian mantra of personal responsibility 'you didn't pay for fire protection, so stop crying'. ridesallyride, werweb and imstellar have no problems toeing the party line, so what's with your resistance to this fundamental libertarian trope? Do you have some reservations in this context? Are you developing social consciousness? Or are you just stuck in blame the government for everything mode?


Point number one: I think these people should've put out the fire. Look, even if this was a privatized fire department, and it was one I owned, I personally would've told them to put it out and tried to seek payment from the man after the fact.

Point number two: I do believe in personal responsibility, and to some degree I think this man has brought this onto himself, however...

point number three: we live in a society where we pay compulsory taxes and told it's a safety net. We believe the government will tuck us in at night, and this is another failure of that system that is deeply ingrained within us. This man probably assumed the government, aka the fire department, would've taken care of this, and I don't fault him for feeling this way, because (as he's mentioned) he has paid taxes which one should assume covers you. If you got rid of the compulsory tax system and instilled a voluntary tax (like user fees) then this would be a different story.

If you got rid of the compulsory tax system and instilled a voluntary tax (like user fees) then this would be a different story.

That's EXACTLY what they did!
Are you just trolling now?

The area the guy lives in decided to get rid of compulsory taxes to pay for fire services, and switched over to paying for fire services with voluntary user fees. This guy states in the video he was well aware that this was the case.

You can't dig your way out of this. Fees to cover fire services need to be voluntary or mandatory. If they are voluntary, and a guy like in the video chooses not to pay what is supposed to happen in your world? Short of doing exactly as the department did, the ONLY alternative is to make all the other paying users cover the cost in hopes that the guy who didn't pay the small user fee, will now be willing to pay an enormous expense bill instead.

Don't tell me you still refuse to see how this goes.

When a victim's family sues their police department for not protecting them, and when the supreme court rules (as it does in EVERY SINGLE CASE) the government has no obligation to protect the people, not a single one of you pious government cultists say shit. You may grumble when the police do something horrible like murder someone or beat up protesters but you chock it up to breaking a few eggs in favor of your big government utopian omelet.

However, let one half-cocked instance of voluntarism creep into the system and it's shouted from the mountaintops when one person falls through the cracks in an isolated case. Bravo! Crusaders of Social Justice!

@bcglorf, hey genius, he claims he was paying local taxes that went into a general fund. How can a government offer services through compulsory taxes and then let someone hang by his nuts when he needs them. Either he doesn't pay taxes and takes personal responsibility or he does pay taxes and the government takes the responsibility.

But even then, as mentioned above, the Supreme Court has routinely ruled the government has NO obligation to protect any of us. So under your beautifully crafted socialist utopia that man's house could still burn down and there's not a fucking thing he can do about it.

...and scene.

Point by point:

1. It's being compared to car ins. because if people could get thousands of dollars of services for less than two dollars, the company (read: FD) wouldn't be able to cover cots because no one would subscribe.

2)Netrunner, you're missing the point that he doesn't pay taxes to the city.

3. So like I said before, They should have shown up, put the fire out, and then charge him however much it cost for the whole operation.(way more than $75.)

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^werbwerb:
Why are we speculating about how a privatized department would work? This wasn't a private department and FDs aren't going to be privatized anytime soon.
...
twisting it to rail against the "Tea Party" is just silly.
If privatization is a total red herring, please describe how it would work differently.
Further, I would ask you to characterize the Tea Party's policy preferences when it comes to government services. Would they prefer this subscription-based service idea, or would they prefer a universal fire service paid for with property taxes?
I'd also like you to tell me what you think should happen to people when they don't pay. Should the fire department let the house burn down?


I'm not going to try and describe how a private FD would work. I'm not for privatization of FDs so I have no idea.

I don't know. I'm not a Tea Party member and I'm not particularly interested in their policy preferences. However, Olbermann takes a one sentence shot at them using this incident and does not elaborate further on why.

It doesn't matter what I think. It's up to the cities who offer services that extend beyond their city limits. They're the ones who must decide on a policy by weighing all of the factors.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Point by point:
1. It's being compared to car ins. because if people could get thousands of dollars of services for less than two dollars, the company (read: FD) wouldn't be able to cover cots because no one would subscribe.
2)Netrunner, you're missing the point that he doesn't pay taxes to the city.
3. So like I said before, They should have shown up, put the fire out, and then charge him however much it cost for the whole operation.(way more than $75.)


I'm not missing the point about one tax vs. another, one-time at cost charges, etc. I just don't think it matters who he didn't pay for what, it was wrong for them to let the house burn.

Further, I think it's wrong that anyone would favor a system that involves letting some people's houses burn down over one that charges a county property tax, and provides service to everyone.

>> ^blankfist:

As far as I'm concerned the minimal the government should offer is fire, police, roads and jails, and if this man is paying local, state and property tax, he was due this coverage.
>> ^blankfist:

So under your beautifully crafted socialist utopia that man's house could still burn down and there's not a fucking thing he can do about it.

You two should have a long talk, and try to work this out.

Kidding aside, you're really missing the point here. I, and many liberals, disagree with the Supreme Court on lots of things, past and present. I'm also not really all that interested in the narrow question of legal findings in the US court system, but the universal moral questions this situation raises, all of which you've refused to engage.

You say that these fire fighters shouldn't have let the fire burn. Why shouldn't they?

The fire fighters don't owe the man anything, he didn't pay his fee. They don't offer out-of-pocket service, it's $75 on time, or it's burn motherfucker burn. It would make business sense if they offered an out of pocket service, but they don't, and forcing them to do so would be slavery (just like forcing shop keepers to serve black people if they don't want to).

If anything, Gene Cranick's pleading and complaining is really the moral outrage -- he thinks he was owed better treatment than he got!

What moral code are you following to imply that this fire department has done anything wrong? It's most certainly not libertarian, because if you really cared about property rights, you would understand that this is how things had to be.

*length=6:17

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6:17 - length declared by Zifnab.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Zifnab.