I think Glynch played some of you guys a bit. I meant to post rhad's story earlier, but never got around to it.
Some commentary would be nice rhad. What do you believe should have happened? Should the fire department have put out the fire when they were receiving no monetary support from the homeowner?
The circumstance is not comparable to glynch's original post, but it makes for an effective illustration of "what-if" type scenarios for the more extreme libertarian fantasies. As it is, three things in that story are odd: 1) I don't think city fire departments should volunteer their services to non-incorporated entities for a fee. They serve the city. If the city wants to protect other folks, incorporate or propose some generalized taxation that the rural parties would have to agree to as a whole - otherwise it strikes me as a bad precedent. 2) If the fire department came all the way out there, you'd think they'd just take a check from the guy and put out the fire. 3) If he had no money, it still seems crazy to me that they would watch the fire burn - refer to point 1 for as to how this should be easily avoided.
Is your point that this is a real-world example of libertarian philosophy in practice? Edit: sorry, you answered while I posted. Nevermind.
1) I do not know all of the particulars in this case but I know some of the details. I do not know if the city has offered/tried to incorporate the rural areas, nor do I know if the offered a group plan and it was voted no by the rural parties. Let's say both of those occured, for the sake of argument. Then do you believe that the city should not have offered this fire service plan at $75 a pop? 2) Do you exepct them to ask for the full cost of fighting the fire? If so, good luck collecting. What if the house burns down anyway? Do you think the homeowner is going to pay? What if they save it, but not to the homeowner's satisfaction? Heck, what if they even save it superbly and he simply doesn't pay? Yes they could put a lien on his house and in 20 years maybe get it back when he sells. I imagine fire departments of this size do not have room in their budgets for 20-year liens. 3) They had been there before when his son caused a fire at that place. I don't remember the year I saw, I want to say it was 2004. He didn't have a plan at that point but the fire department offered to let him pay the $75 on the spot, he did, and they put out the fire. Now you want them to do that again? If so who in their right mind would ever pony up the $75? Where is the fire department going to get the resources they need to serve the area?
They had a recording of him promising to pay, so they could probably sue successfully to be reimbursed for their costs if he did not pay. Of course, it may have been obvious that he didn't have the means to pay. Even if he did have the means, I don't think they want to have the policy of putting out fires and then suing for reimbursement because they will come across plenty of people who don't have the means to pay. So, I don't think there's a problem with watching the house burn. I do think they have an obligation to make sure all people and animals are out of the house safely, but the rest is just stuff. Insurance can take care of that (if he bought any). I do agree with rhad that I would prefer paying for the FD with a tax and covering the entire incorporated area. Everyone is covered and everyone pays. It also allows you to have people with more valuable homes pay more. But, having an opportunity to opt-in for $75 is certainly better than nothing.
No, actually. They should not have offered the option. I think it's a bad precedent when a public service operates as a private entity. What happens if there is a fire in the city and at a rural home who had paid the $75? I think Juan answered this one pretty well. Well yeah, I agree. It's analogous to the arguments for requiring a health insurance mandate along with the no-pre-existing-condition clause. My point there was more to illustrate the comedy inherent to this "system". From a certain point of view, it echoes Chomsky's concerns that a "true" libertarian state would be so ethically perverted by capital that no one would want to live in it. As it is, if I was the homeowner I would have tried to bribe the guys, lol.
It seems very odd that there would be a place close enough to somewhere that it could be reasonably served by that city's fire department, but only on an opt-in basis -- and yet have not fire protection of its own. Even a volunteer dept. So it's not waaaay out in the boons, yet a homeowner has to rely on his garden hose to put out a house fire unless he pays an optional fee? I'm guessing the 'opt-in' deal is some sort of county compromise instead of a general assessment. I doubt the city dept is just sidelining for a few extra bucks. They must have the resources to serve that area too -- just haven't agreed on a sane way to share the costs. As to the house lien discussion -- they were already there. The marginal cost to put the fire out on the neighbour's yard were next to nothing. They didn't even come out until accounts receivable verified that the call came from a current customer. So put it out and bill 'em -- I guess. What a crazy system.
Near our town is a small village that is full of very well-to-do retirees and upscale professionals. They have a fire/police/ambulance department, but it is inadequate. The Fire Dept has no equipment that can go above two stories, and there are several multi story buildings on the main street... historical wooden structures left over from the gold rush days... very dry and prone to fires. The police and ambulance cannot be funded seven days a week... if you get robbed or have a heart attack on the days they are not there, it's a 10-15 minute wait for a neighboring jurisdiction to show up. Recently, the Fire Dept. acquired an excess ladder truck from a major city for nothing. This would allow them to access the roofs of the historical buildings and limit the spread of fire between the buildings that share walls... all they had to do was maintain it at about $5000 per year. Well, the city council decided that the cost was too much and besides, the ladder truck was too big for the fire station and would have to be housed in the shed where the dump truck parks and they didn't want the dump truck sitting outside. So, the FD gave the ladder truck back. On top of this, the FD proposed an annexation to a county FD for 7 day coverage and adequate equipment and staffing for both fire and ambulance. The city council voted it down because it would mean about an extra $100 per household. The most common argument heard was "If I get sick, I'll pay for my own ambulance." An absurd argument because even if you can afford to pay for it, it may not come soon enough. Meanwhile, the Police Dept goes to great lengths to keep their schedule secret so people don't know when there's no law enforcement in the town. It's just a matter of time before something bad happens and the first ones to cry about it and blame the FD or the PD or the paramedics will be the people who didn't want to pony up a few bucks to protect their $700K homes, the historic main street that provides a significant amount of the value to their homes, and themselves. This is where we're at in America. I can't believe we're starting to unpave roads, close down libraries, and let infrastructure fall into disrepair. When I was growing up, people pointed to those things as a sign of a successful community and there was civic pride in paving roads (think all those Texas Farm to Market roads just appeared out of thin air... they used to be dirt), building libraries, bridges, schools, fire stations, even sewer plants. Those weren't Repub or Dem things... those were American things. Now look at us.
crazy story Rim. At some point, politicians have to lead, instead of just posturing for the polls. But I guess it's like that all over. We spent some time in Oregon again this summer. You're odd folk there. Likable. But strange. Hippies and rednecks. Tech geeks and loggers. Community activism with a huge aversion to anything that hints of tax. Libertarian liberals, if there is such a thing.
