Firefighters let house burn because owners did not pay fee

[The Moonshield]

I can't understand this "just put it out and send him a bill later" argument. If he didn't already pay the $75, what makes people think he would've paid a few thousand later?

How about a court order and the threat of some serious jail time if he fails to comply?

[Lazarus43]

I can't understand this "just put it out and send him a bill later" argument. If he didn't already pay the $75, what makes people think he would've paid a few thousand later?

A lien against the property like a "mechanic's lien" would be an easy solution to assure payment.

[Meta Knight]

But does the city fire department have any ability to even send a court order or a lien on someone outside their jurisdiction?

[Alcoth]

But does the city fire department have any ability to even send a court order or a lien on someone outside their jurisdiction?

If the guy signs an agreement with the city on the spot, does it matter?

[Alcoth]

Thought of a legal loophole he could slip through with my aforementioned comment. Can't necessarily sign something under duress and have it stand up in court. House on fire while you're asked to sign paperwork probably counts as duress. Love successfully refuting myself

[DMCanuck]

I think the thing that is getting overlooked by the Mayor and council is:

What do the residents / citizens want in terms of policy? It appears as though the values of the people in the rural community in Obion County are at odds with the values of the the mayor of South Fulton and the council.


There is likely a disconnect between mayor and council and the rural citizens.

Perhaps the fee is viewed as taxation without representation by some residents of the rural community.

Perhaps the policy is new or the people were not consulted as to what value they want for tax dollar or fee based services.

There could be a history of miscommunication or maybe local politics led to policy that is at odds with these residents.

Something has broken down. Trust. Communication. If the citizens are expressing their concern about the policies, then policy should be revisited. This event wouldn't do much to engender trust. Consulting with the residents might.

[Crow]

I don't know about this particular area, but I lived in a rural area. Many people did not care to have their taxes raised to pay for fire service. My father paid for it out of his own pocket and he was the exception to the rule.

Many folks lived in mobile homes. Those things go up like dry firewood. They figured that if the thing caught fire the fire dept would be getting there just in time to wet down the cinders.

I can remember the hullaballo when the prospect of putting city water and sewage in loomed. People had fits. They didn't want it. They would rather stick to wells, septic tanks and outhouses than be forced to pay for city water. As near as I know, they still have no city water/sewer service out in that neck of the woods.

[Seasanctuary]

In the law of the jungle, the dead weight gets eaten or left to starve; civilization accepts the probability that some dead weight will be carried along. It's not fair, it's not balanced, but that's how a civilized community works. The burden of carrying the dead weight more than gets paid back by the increases in structural stability and integration a community allows.

Right, which is precisely why I think it was such a good idea to let the house burn down. Doing so highlighted a problem with the libertarian mindset. If we allow such policies to continue and get mad at people for not breaking the policies to "do the right thing," the problem will simply fester.

When it's possible to do so, bad policies should be allowed to publicly and dramatically fail.

[themuzicman]

If they had fire insurance, could the company say they won't pay for the damage since the fire was allowed to burn freely with no effort to reduce the loss?

Only if his insurance policy required that his home be covered by a fire department.

[Darth Executor]

Right, which is precisely why I think it was such a good idea to let the house burn down. Doing so highlighted a problem with the libertarian mindset. If we allow such policies to continue and get mad at people for not breaking the policies to "do the right thing," the problem will simply fester.

When it's possible to do so, bad policies should be allowed to publicly and dramatically fail.

Under libertarian philosophy this is SUPPOSED to happen, so I'm not sure how this highlights a problem with the libertarian mindset. If you don't like the idea of letting people take the fall for their stupidity, this will change nothing. If you like the idea of letting people take the fall for their stupidity, this also changes nothing. To me, if anything, it highlights the problem with people putting the primary blame for stupid, selfish decisions on the wrong person and exonerating the one who's responsible for the debacle: the owner who thought he could leech off his community.

[Seasanctuary]

Under libertarian philosophy this is SUPPOSED to happen, so I'm not sure how this highlights a problem with the libertarian mindset.

Think of it more like highlighting the consequences of libertarian policy. If people are ok with this happening, then cool. If not, then they should stop pretending to be for policies they don't support in practice.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Indeed, best case would have been to put out the fire and bill the owner (who already had agreed to pay whatever was necessary to put out the fire) the several hundred or several thousand dollars for the service.

Great, great. So a new piece of equipment required for every firetruck is a credit card machine so they can make an imprint of his card or an internet hookup to run it through. Once the payment is secure, then the fire fighters can start putting out a fire. Till then, watch it burn while they sort out his payment.

[Challenger Grim]

I thought this was interesting as it seems the case is over a government run fire system in the first place (oops).
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...burn-down.html

Reminder: economics is an attempt to deal with the reality of limited time and resources. While the fire truck is there at one house, it isn't going to be able to help another house that might be burning. The men waiting on hand to respond to a fire can't be putting their time and energies to bettering our society through innovation, business, etc etc. The metal and equipment used to construct the fire truck can't be used to construct an ambulance or medical equipment or whatever.

The point is, there's costs and trade offs and it's up to the community to decide how they want to run.

[One Bad Pig]

In this case, they could have, but the council voted it down.

Sorry, money does NOT fall from the sky after all. Do you think Peter would voluntarily pay for Paul's fire protection?

[Anon]

Think of it more like highlighting the consequences of libertarian policy. If people are ok with this happening, then cool. If not, then they should stop pretending to be for policies they don't support in practice.

Ironically, this is a very Libertarian standpoint.

(IB4 some moron corrects my use of "ironically" )

I disapprove strongly of the firemen's actions. That may come as a shock due to my political stance, but I can explain easily.

Here's the central question: in the sole capacity as their role as firefighters, did the firemen have the moral duty to save this house? Since four pets inside died, does their moral duty come into play at that point? If kids or anyone else were trapped inside, do they have the moral duty (in their capacity as firefighters of a foreign city, not as able citizens) to rescue them? No, to all of these.

NOTE: BEFORE I'M EXCORIATED, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHETHER AN ACTION IS MORALLY DUTIFUL OR IS MORALLY PRAISEWORTHY.

Would the firemen's actions in saving the house have been morally praiseworthy? Certainly. Are they worth chastising for choosing a community-oriented, saving-others-oriented profession and watching as a house burned and four animals died when they could have lifted their little finger to stop it? Certainly. But they did not have any duties to save the house, since the house was not in the community they vowed to serve, nor was it included in a contract tying that house to the community they vowed to serve.

They would have had a duty to save any children inside (and possibly pets; I don't know how the laws are there) under Good Samaritan laws and thought by virtue of being there and being able, but they had no duty in their capacity as firemen to do anything at all, just as they don't have the duty to put out a housefire in Siberia.

I don't like these guys at all for what they refused to do. But do I find them derelict of any moral duty? Nope.