>> ^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?

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?

@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.

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.

Let's peel back the emotional responses and look at this reasonably.

1. This was a failing of the public government.
2. This has nothing to do with Libertarianism or privatization. That's a classic red herring.
3. Why haven't these people created their own volunteer fire department?
4. Word to the wise: buy a C02 canister for your home.

That said, these people should've been a bit more human about this and put the guy's house out. Also, I'm sure he pays taxes, and probably plenty of them, so why wouldn't the fire department be covered? That's further proof of the failing of government right there.

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^Net
Runner:
I think the better solution though is to stick with the normal way this is done -- it's baked into your local taxes, and everyone who needs a house fire put out, gets it.



The problem with that solution in this particular case is, if I'm not mistaken, the fire department was located in the city and the homes are located outside the city. These people don't pay city taxes. They were given an option to pay a fee to get service from the city FD.

The real solution here, is these people need their own fire department.

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.

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by jwray:
*quality

>> ^qua
ntumushroom:

Goofus should've been allowed to be billed later...even 5 grand would be less than losing the house. BTW what kind of insurance company allows its customers to NOT have fire insurance (besides igloos)?
P.S. The fire department in question is government-run, not private for-hire (which would gladly have taken the money).


But people like you are the reason it's fee-for-service instead of being paid for by mandatory taxes like everybody else's fire departments.

I can't believe there's a municipality in the USA dumb enough to have a fee-for-service fire department. It was just a theoretical thing for the sake of arguing about healthcare, for me. I suppose fire contagion is less of an issue in a rural setting, but it can still happen, therefore you have to put out all the fires or risk that the fires will spread. Therefore fire department service has to cover everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. The same applies to a lot of healthcare.

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...

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

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?