Pay for fire protection or burn

Don · Oct 5, 2010

Maxinquaye said:
I'm not to sure about that since the american classical liberals allied themselves with the priveleged, and among other things turned a blind eye to the most egregious breach of classical liberalism, equality under the law - slavery. Which broke the democrats of the time, and Martin van Buren.

Broad brush there, Max. There's plenty of literature from the time of the Constitution all the way to the Civil War with classical liberals speaking out against the institution of slavery. One of my favorites liberals is Lysander Spooner, and he was a strict abolitionist. Even slaveholder Thomas Jefferson tried to abolish it with several pieces of his writing, including the Declaration of Independence, but politics won in the long run.

In any event, their failure to grant rights to all people doesn't negate the concept of rights, any more than today's failure of the establishment to grant full rights to gays. What's important to remember is that is the first era in which the possibility of rights for the common man gained widespread acceptance. Although some here would prefer to return to the days of the divine rights of kings.

Maxinquaye · Oct 5, 2010

Well, yes, because it was a party that accepted property based vote during the jacksonian democracy, and had a gentleman's agreement with the whigs not to debate slavery.

Which destroyed the democratic party at the time, after Texas got into the Union when van Buren didn't get the nod to become the new president, and after that it was the statist republicans lead by the former whig Lincoln that took over the lead.

That alignment with the landed gentry and the slave holders was prevalent both during the jacksonian and the jeffersonian democracies. IIRC it was only after van Buren became president that universal suffrage was introduced. But it doesn't really matter, because that period ended with the civil war, and during that period the american classical liberal were aligned as they were aligned.

Satori1977 · Oct 5, 2010

I actually just heard about this, but read this article about it.

First of all, I think it is sad that they would let a house, and all their possessions (many probably irreplacable like photos and family heirlooms) burn to the ground over a small fee, which the owner claims to have fogotten to pay. I can't comment on that part, since I don't know how paying for fire service works. If you have to take care of it completely on your own, or if you are sent a bill. I think it should just be taken out in your taxes, then things like this wouldn't happen.

Also, in the article I posted, three pets were lost in the fire. I find that fact heartbreaking. To let those poor animal die a horrible death over a small fee.

rugcat · Oct 5, 2010

Don said:
Although some here would prefer to return to the days of the divine rights of kings.

Instead of the divine right of property?

veinglory · Oct 5, 2010

If they wanted fire service the options were to lobby to have it paid by taxes, or pay the optional fee. Either seems logical.

However I do think the fire service should have saved the pets. I would argue that not doing so is animal cruelty.

Maxinquaye · Oct 5, 2010

rugcat said:
Instead of the divine right of property?

You (general yous here) have already let the society stray back into a society of privelege. You might not have earls, barons or dukes, but you have the equivalents in a non-succession kind of way.

Jean Baptiste Sey said:
A Treatise on Political Economy, or the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth, p146–47
But personal interest is no longer a safe criterion, if individual interests are not left to counteract and control each other. If one individual, or one class, can call in the aid of authority to ward off the effects of competition, it acquires a privilege and at the cost of the whole community; it can then make sure of profits not altogether due to the productive services rendered, but composed in part of an actual tax upon consumers for its private profit; which tax it commonly shares with the authority that thus unjustly lends its support. The legislative body has great difficulty in resisting the importunate demands for this kind of privileges; the applicants are the producers that are to benefit thereby, who can represent, with much plausibility, that their own gains are a gain to the industrious classes, and to the nation at large, their workmen and themselves being members of the industrious classes, and of the nation.

I would say that this is rampant through many countries in the west now.

Michael Wolfe · Oct 5, 2010

rugcat said:
Instead of the divine right of property?

I imagine no - Don's an atheist.

Romantic Heretic · Oct 5, 2010

Sorta back to the original topic.

The Fire Department is Socialist!!!!eleventy

DancingMaenid · Oct 5, 2010

veinglory said:
However I do think the fire service should have saved the pets. I would argue that not doing so is animal cruelty.

I agree. That's horrible. If rescue personnel neglected to try to save my animals when they had opportunity to try, I'd be livid.

Now, I don't know that much about fire fighting, so maybe I'm off base here, but doesn't it seem kind of...dumb to just let a building burn? I guess if a house was in the middle of a field or desert with nothing around it, the fire might not cause much harm to the surrounding area. But it seems like in a lot of cases, a house fire could be at risk of spreading. I wonder if the fire department would behave differently if said house was near trees or other buildings.

Regardless, I think services like this are best built into our taxes whenever possible. I don't see firefighting services as something that's really optional.

Xelebes · Oct 5, 2010

blacbird said:
American "libertarians", as a generality, are more accurately referred to as "people who like to call themselves libertarians". Too bad I can't make that into a pronounceable acronym, but for every smart philosophical "libertarian" there are fifty of these others. They are epitomized by Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Catherine O'Donnell and Michele Bachmann, and most of them wrap their "libertarianism" in an American flag and the cloak of Jesus. For all their rhetoric, they aren't remotely interested in individual freedom of choice.

Would the term "auto-appraiser" work?

ITIALTIA or itialtia (I Think I Am Libertarian, Therefore I Am) is also workable.

Bird of Prey · Oct 5, 2010

DancingMaenid said:
I agree. That's horrible. If rescue personnel neglected to try to save my animals when they had opportunity to try, I'd be livid.

Now, I don't know that much about fire fighting, so maybe I'm off base here, but doesn't it seem kind of...dumb to just let a building burn? I guess if a house was in the middle of a field or desert with nothing around it, the fire might not cause much harm to the surrounding area. But it seems like in a lot of cases, a house fire could be at risk of spreading. I wonder if the fire department would behave differently if said house was near trees or other buildings.

Regardless, I think services like this are best built into our taxes whenever possible. I don't see firefighting services as something that's really optional.

I'd gladly trade my insurance premium for a "fire department" direct payment to the guys that actually make it here in fire trucks. . . .

Williebee · Oct 5, 2010

If rescue personnel neglected to try to save my animals when they had opportunity to try, I'd be livid.

Upset, maybe, but "livid"? I can agree with the sad possibility that it may have been cruel to the animals (Unless we know the when and exactly how of the animal's deaths, we don't know this.) But going into a burning structure is pretty much, by definition, life threatening. I've done it a couple times, thanks to Navy firefighting and a sometimes eventful childhood. I'd not be willing to attack the on scene firefighter's value judgement on this. That doesn't lessen the sadness of it, however.

but doesn't it seem kind of...dumb to just let a building burn?

At a certain point it becomes a safer judgement to concentrate on preventing the spread of the fire, either the initial structure is too involved to be saved or the damage is so extensive that it isn't worth it.

DancingMaenid · Oct 5, 2010

Williebee said:
Upset, maybe, but "livid"? I can agree with the sad possibility that it may have been cruel to the animals (Unless we know the when and exactly how of the animal's deaths, we don't know this.) But going into a burning structure is pretty much, by definition, life threatening. I've done it a couple times, thanks to Navy firefighting and a sometimes eventful childhood. I'd not be willing to attack the on scene firefighter's value judgement on this. That doesn't lessen the sadness of it, however.

My pets are my family.

I do understand that there comes a point where it may be too risky for the firefighters to go inside, or impossible for them to find the animals, hence what I said about "trying." What would make me livid would be losing my family because someone didn't even consider trying to help. If they assessed the situation with my animals in mind, and decided they couldn't go in at that point, I'd be more likely to see their point of view.

At a certain point it becomes a safer judgement to concentrate on preventing the spread of the fire, either the initial structure is too involved to be saved or the damage is so extensive that it isn't worth it.

That's what I was saying, though. If you just ignore a fire, what are the chances that it could catch more buildings on fire or start a forest fire? It seems like in the long run, it'd be better to get to the scene quickly and do damage control, regardless of what happens to the initial structure or whether the owners of it paid their bills. Where I live, it could mean the difference between one destroyed house and a bad forest fire.

Michael Wolfe · Oct 6, 2010

DancingMaenid said:
What would make me livid would be losing my family because someone didn't even consider trying to help.

Exactly. The reason for the inaction here was because the guy didn't pay the fee, not because the fire was said to be too dangerous or too developed when the firemen arrived on the scene.

(Of course, I'm supposed to be supporting what happened here, to reinforce Amadan's understanding of libertarianism.

Oh well.)

shadowwalker · Oct 6, 2010

The thing about non-payment and "pay later" is that if they made it a habit, you know darn well more and more people would say they would pay later - and then wouldn't. Plus, those fees help pay for the costs of equipment and the repair and maintenance of that equipment, whether or not the people ever need the services. So it's not just a matter of making one exception. It's a matter of making sure everyone is paying their fair share so the fire department can continue to function and be able to respond effectively.

Don · Oct 6, 2010

From Mises.org, a few details not yet noted.

I don’t get this debate at all. It is not even a real debate. The fire-protection services were government services. The fee in question was a government-mandated fee. The county lines in which the fee was applicable is a government-drawn line that is completely arbitrary. The policy of not putting out the fire was a government policy enforced by the mayor. As he said, in the words of a good bureaucrat, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t.”

So why is the market being criticized here? This was not a real market. Instead, this is precisely what we would expect from government. In a real market, there is no way that a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service. They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that. It is the same as lawn-mowing services or plumbing services or any other type of service. Can we know for sure that the market would provide such services? Well, if insurance companies have anything to say about it, such services would certainly be everywhere.

As it was, the fire burned down as a result of government policy, a refusal of service because the homeowners did not pay what amounted to a tax! The poor homeowner begged for help and offered to pay. He had paid the year before and the year before, so his credit was good. Even so, the bureaucracy refused! (The whole thing reminds me of a scene from Gangs of New York.)

robeiae · Oct 6, 2010

Well. That's no fun.

Don · Oct 6, 2010

robeiae said:
Well. That's no fun.

I keep tellin' you, rob. The Hobbesians you need to fear are the ones in charge of the asylum, not your fellow inmates.

Romantic Heretic · Oct 7, 2010

Having followed this for a couple of days there are only two things I've found about this incident.

1. A family has lost everything except the clothes on their backs because of $75 not paid.

2. There's a lot of people out there who are using complex, well thought out reasons to say this is a good thing.

Both facts male me retch.

Brutal Mustang · Oct 7, 2010

Satori1977 said:
Also, in the article I posted, three pets were lost in the fire. I find that fact heartbreaking. To let those poor animal die a horrible death over a small fee.

I know! That's the worst part! I can't STAND the thought of pets burning in a fire. Damp that fire department. And that owner, too, for not getting them out.

You know, if I were those firemen, I'd want to put that fire out out of compassion, if nothing else. And I'm generally a bit libertarian.

Michael Wolfe · Oct 7, 2010

Romantic Heretic said:
2. There's a lot of people out there who are using complex, well thought out reasons to say this is a good thing.

You mean in general, or here on AW?

Even the libertarians here on AW aren't saying this is a good thing. And there's a difference between defending the firefighters from some of the criticisms and saying this is a good thing. Williebee, for example, did the first but not the second.

I haven't followed the national coverage too deeply. If by "out there" you mean people in general, or on TV, or other places online, etc, what sort of arguments have you been hearing? (Just out of curiousity)

icerose · Oct 7, 2010

Romantic Heretic said:
Sorta back to the original topic.

The Fire Department is Socialist!!!!eleventy

Please tell me that was a sarcasm piece and not a real piece with the person writing it actually believing what they're saying.

ETA: Unless the entire blog is a sarcastic jab at right wing-nuts I guess that answers my question.

Michael Wolfe · Oct 7, 2010

icerose said:
Please tell me that was a sarcasm piece and not a real piece with the person writing it actually believing what they're saying.

Sarcasm? Why, I thought it was real!!!! * You mean that kid didn't really get his knee stuck in the toaster oven???

* Sarcasm here.

Michael Wolfe · Oct 7, 2010

icerose said:
ETA: Unless the entire blog is a sarcastic jab at right wing-nuts I guess that answers my question.

It is, I suppose, a sarcastic jab, but a pretty stupid one. The firemen article had maybe one or two decent lines, but it wasn't nearly as clever as the writer probably thinks it is. I give it a 3 out of 10.

Don · Oct 7, 2010

Brutal Mustang said:
I know! That's the worst part! I can't STAND the thought of pets burning in a fire. Damp that fire department. And that owner, too, for not getting them out.

You know, if I were those firemen, I'd want to put that fire out out of compassion, if nothing else. And I'm generally a bit libertarian.

Yeah, I was very surprised that the firemen themselves didn't say screw the regulations, we'll put it out anyway and settle with the owner later.

Then I found out who they worked for. They probably would have gotten fired and lost their pensions if they'd bucked the system.

Pay for fire protection or burn

All Living is Local

That cheeky buggerer

Listening to the Voices In My Head

Lost in the Fog

volitare nequeo

That cheeky buggerer

Jambo Bwana

uncoerced

New kid...seven years ago!

Delerium ex Ennui

Benefactor Member

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

New kid...seven years ago!

Jambo Bwana

empty-nester!

All Living is Local

Touch and go

All Living is Local

uncoerced

Loves interplanetary chaos.

Jambo Bwana

Lost in School Work

Jambo Bwana

Jambo Bwana

All Living is Local