Rick Perry forces firefighters to pay for hose, put members at peril

As did the situation the military found itself in in Iraq, where soldiers' families were purchasing needed safety gear at their own expense and shipping it over.

 

The tea party perspective is that gov't should not interfere here and let the markets pay for fire protection.

I think fire service should be privatize. People can pay companies to protect their houses from fire. If you don't pay - than the company can cut service. This way fire fighters never have to put their lives in risk. Communities that don't pay a lot for fire service will get worse service, or no service.

 

Can't tell if serious, but if so,
Ancient Roman History: Please learn it.

 

Fire insurance with privatized fire fighters...duh.

 

That's not the "tea party perspective" because there is no organized tea party or platform. By definition they don't have a common perspective. It is pretty much in line with the strict Libertarian perspective though which is why I, as at least a somewhat moral person, could never be a Libertarian.

Let the least advantaged among us die in fires and natural disasters, deny them police protection, deny them schools, deny them access to health care, deny them safe food and water. I could go on. Shall I?

You're pulling on a downright evil thread, Lou. Is this another NewYorker-style "social experiment?"

 

The most brilliant point of this argument isn't written anywhere in this text. It is the undeniable fact that all fires, everywhere, all the time, are confined to one house.

 

Where I used to live in AZ you could choose whether or not to pay for fire service.

If you didn't and your house caught fire, they would still put it out, but your fee would be quite high.

 

Relax Mr Jones. I am not espousing we privatize fire departments nor anything close to that, but rather practicing the lost art of satire.

And Tea Partiers are not libertarians. Libertarians in general are about increasing freedom but not at the expense of hurting people. Libertarians are not against regulation, they are against unnecessary limits to freedom. They actually oppose companies from owning public resources like oil fields which should belong to the people.

Tea partiers are just neo-cons in sheep's clothing.

 

And in reality they could never force you to pay it since you never asked for it.

 

Beautiful! Someone is thinking!

 

Generally someone calls the fire department when their house is on fire, which would mean they did ask for it.

 

They don't have to call ya know. They can let the whole neighborhood burn down, right?

 

And every other party denies me the right to the fruits of my own labor so they can grant their corporate pals the right to force us to buy and use their shoddy services.

 

Simple: Liability agreements in law and contract. Insurance to spread the cost of the risk among private parties.

 

As with any type of insurance, people pool their resources together in order to reduce their losses in the event of some costly occurrence. Using your example, an entire apartment complex or individual renters may insure themselves against fire damage. In the ladder case, liability agreements, whether by law or contract (in this case, it would likely be a contractual portion of the lease), would make the source of the fire liable for damages to third parties. In this scenario firefighting services are paid by firms that provide fire insurance or by the liable party. Of course, private service would rely on the effectiveness of the legal system, but that's pretty much the case with every issue the courts deliberate in.

 

This is simple to remedy. People who can afford to pay for fire department just need their own communities. Gated, wired, with trespassers shot on the spot if they get near it. This way you can make sure only the people who can afford it can get police protection, fire protection, 24hr emergency hospital service, paved roads, etc.

This will get rid of those moochers.