Libertarian Fire-Fighting in action - USA, where else?

marco_polo

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It does show the complete failure of a libertarian system in action however. Some will argue that it instead shows the success of the libertarian system, which as usual discounts any realities like stray cinders endangering other homes or small children that the smoke might have overcome.

Honestly, I wonder does the irony ever strike some of the more vocal proponents of libertarianism while they pontificate and preach about the failures and evils of government, that they sit on made-in-China chairs typing on a made-in-China computer.

I am not really sure how Libertarianism is to blame when we are talking about a local government, tax funded, public fire brigade. Certainly it is a failure of the relevant county authorithies to make adequate provision to establish a county wide fire service. If you could establish that the reason for the lack of a county wide service is political idealogy then you may have a case.

It doesn't seem very fair either to expect urban tax payers bear practically the entire cost of a service when only 15% of callouts are urban.

Amhran Nua

marco_polo wrote: »

I am not really sure how Libertarianism is to blame when we are talking about a local government, tax funded, public fire brigade. Certainly it is a failure of the relevant county authorithies to make adequate provision to establish a county wide fire service. If you could establish that the reason for the lack of a county wide service is political idealogy then you may have a case.

Eh, you quoted a Cato institute mouthpiece and then come back saying it has nothing to do with libertarianism. Even if it doesn't, it certainly is an ideal libertarian situation. The tax funding doesn't extend to rural areas - I would agree with the fire department that it should, as the best case solution which the rest of the world has long since worked out.

marco_polo wrote: »

It doesn't seem very fair either to expect urban tax payers bear practically the entire cost of a service when only 15% of callouts are urban.

It likewise doesn't seem fair that someone with no children should have their taxes going towards education, someone who is rarely sick gets to support the health service, and someone who has worked all their lives has to support social welfare. But when you take away these social supports, you end up back in the 19th century, which is where libertaria lies. In any case I'd agree that the rural areas should be taxed.

MCMLXXXIII

According to Wikipedia (I know it’s wiki, but just for the basis of the argument) there are 1,081 households in South Fulton. It’s unclear to me if South Fulton is the city with the fire department, or if it’s the city that pays for the subscription, but even if every household pays – that’s only $81,075. Hiring a lawyer to sue someone would cost at least $35,000 minimum. The department can’t waste that much money to get $75 out of someone. Plus, if they wanted to sue for the cost of sending everyone out there, I would feel confidant saying that it still wouldn’t be worth it. Also, if they take a chance in court for the money, the resident would (most likely) have a counter-suit for them not putting out the fire when they were already there. Then the fire department would have to pay lawyers, etc. again for that case. It gets messy once you go outside the actual contract they have with the city and its residents.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Bingo.

I read on another forum where this guy was saying he remembered a time when the local fire brigade would actually turn up to calls about a cat up a tree. And they'd roll out the ladder and everybody would come out onto the street looking on, pretty much cheering them on.

Fast forward a few decades and witness a local fire brigade standing idylly by watching someone's house burn, their pet dogs and cat getting incinerated inside.

Something is very wrong in USA. Lets hope the contagion stays there.

Did the cat in the tree belong to someone that had paid the $75 subscription?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh, bullsh!t. Stop over-dramatising. Standing in the driveway with a power hose spraying water onto the house isn't putting ANYONE'S life at risk. I've done it myself. The firemen were already at the scene. They were already on the clock. How much money did they save by NOT turning on the hoses for a while? Again, you're the kind of person who thinks that anyone who is in need should suffer the severest of consequences for the smallest of fückups if the blame can be laid at their door, hardman.

AAAAAAAHHH wrote: »

And then if nobody has a fire for a year or two the service closes down due to lack of funds.

They saved a lot of money. Maybe not right away, but their viability for the future remains secure. Even though your house has never burnt down, you probably still have homeowner's insurance. On the same side of the coin - if your insurance company is continuously paying for non-subscribers' repairs, you would be a fool to keep paying your subscription fee.

karma_ wrote: »

Listen to you, I realise it's great craic to sit in a big ol' Ivory tower and all but what of the folk who cannot pay?

This has set a very, very dangerous precedent. Maybe this man could have paid, maybe he was in financial difficulties which is not unknown during a recession. Do we allow all the poor peoples homes to burn down? If we have an ability and a will to help, then we should.

This isn't the Red Cross. I think the poor in the US get screwed every single day, and there's not much they can do about it. However, they can go to town hall meetings and start a petition to get fire service to everyone. OR they could petition to make it a local ordinance that everyone must pay the $75 subscription fee. OR they could just pay their own subscription fee. Minimum wage in the US is $7.25, which is less than 11 hours of work to pay off the $75 fee. If they are out of work, they are getting money from the government, and if they are "under the poverty line" the government pays for their housing and gives them a monthly stipend for food. $75 is unimaginably cheap for a year or fire service, and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to pay for it.

BluePlanet wrote: »

So phantom_lord, just to be clear: you're OK with a fire brigade standing by not doing anything while dogs and a cat get burned up unnecessarily?

What if it were an infant baby in an upstairs bedroom?

No human life was in danger. Yeah – it really stinks that the family pet perished, but it wasn’t a person. Not to point out your post in particular, BluePanet, but a lot of people are giving the argument “what if there was someone in there” or “would you let someone bleed out on the steps of the hospital” and the answer, of course, is you would help the person. It’s law in the US to give medical attention to anyone that needs it – and you aren’t even allowed to take them to court or “send them to collections” to collect the money – the government will pay for it through MedicAid. That was not the case in this situation.




I live in (the suburbs) of a very hard-hit city. Detroit city proper is just as bad as you see in the media – especially over the last two years. The fire department has a fire-boat. It was originally purchased to be able to put out car fires on the Ambassador Bridge – 160 feet above the water. It also came in use to put out fires in the high-rise buildings along the river. The boat costs the city $1 million per year for upkeep. For a while, the surrounding cities paid Detroit a subscription fee for fire protection along the rivers. As Detroit lost population, money, and eventually lost responsibility within the city government, most of the other cities stopped paying their subscription. The only city left paying was Windsor, Ontario, and even they stopped paying due to budget constraints in 2008. The boat is now docked up a secondary river behind seven miles of tow bridges and the ports of manufacturing facilities. It’s not the lack of fire that caused the operations to shut down – it was the lack of taxes and subscription fees. The South Fulton Fire Department needs to make sure everyone is paying for the service; otherwise, they run the risk of having to shut down the fire department all together.

marco_polo

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Eh, you quoted a Cato institute mouthpiece and then come back saying it has nothing to do with libertarianism. Even if it doesn't, it certainly is an ideal libertarian situation. The tax funding doesn't extend to rural areas - I would agree with the fire department that it should, as the best case solution which the rest of the world has long since worked out.
.

Are you just going to keep attacking the source of a single link in one of numerous post I have made on the thread then i see little point in continuing on this thread. If the article said something that was innacurate about the structure of the fireservice in the county then perhaps now would be a good time to highlight it to me.

Also I fail to see how your thought process leads you to conclude that a small minority of taxpayers paying the full burden for a public service is some sort of ideal libertarian situation?

It likewise doesn't seem fair that someone with no children should have their taxes going towards education, someone who is rarely sick gets to support the health service, and someone who has worked all their lives has to support social welfare. But when you take away these social supports, you end up back in the 19th century, which is where libertaria lies. In any case I'd agree that the rural areas should be taxed.

It is completely different as that the people receiving those services will by and large have contributed hansomely to the common tax pool that the money for those services is drawn out of.

The proper analogy would be arguing that it is perfect fine for our fire service to head into Northern Ireland and put out fires free of charge.

CokaColumbo

I don't see the need for any debate on this topic; it's incredibly simple.

The fire-men were right to let the house burn down. The residents were given the opportunity to pay for the fire-service but they took their chances and did not. It was their choice not to avail of the service and they have nobody to blame for what happened except for themselves; it's called "personal responsibility".

If nobody paid the small, annual charge for the private fire-brigade, there would be no service available for anybody. And if the brigade goes around putting out people's fires regardless of whether or not they pay for the service, a whole lot of people are going to not bother paying in the future (= no more fire brigade).

I think this quick video sums it up very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkhtXoMzEV0

Amhran Nua

marco_polo wrote: »

Are you just going to keep attacking the source of a single link in one of numerous post I have made on the thread then i see little point in continuing on this thread.

You asked what it had to do with libertarianism, I pointed out that you had quoted a libertarian mouthpiece.

marco_polo wrote: »

If the article said something that was innacurate about the structure of the fireservice in the county then perhaps now would be a good time to highlight it to me.

I kind of faded out after "freeloading jerks". Your other articles were decent however and I do agree with them in many places, something you seem intent on ignoring.

marco_polo wrote: »

Also I fail to see how your thought process leads you to conclude that a small minority of taxpayers paying the full burden for a public service is some sort of ideal libertarian situation?

The "pay or die" aspect of the story has surely not escaped your attention. Plus that most of the people in the area were in fact paying the rates.

marco_polo wrote: »

It is completely different as that the people receiving those services will by and large have contributed hansomely to the common tax pool that the money for those services is drawn out of.

No, its not completely different, its exactly the same. All those people were voluntarily paying rates to the fire department, the vast majority of whom won't have their house burn down. But since it wasn't tax funded, we get the lovely situation where we have the fire department sitting picking their teeth while smoke fills the sky.

K-9

The obvious solution would be not to have a fee paying service and have it federally funded or have a state service. That would involve paying a little more tax, so, unlikely in America as God forbid, providing a state run fire service would be Socialist!

Amhran Nua

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I think this quick video sums it up very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkhtXoMzEV0

I would never have thought to find such a video at drinkingwithbob.com. And why do I get the distinct impression that this broadcast was brought to us from his underground bunker?

TPD

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Nope, that increases the cost because the average number of calls decrease. In any case its ludicrous to make out that everyone will just stop paying. Not everyone would be that irresponsible and/or forgetful.

If there are no fires for 2 months, the next one might cost $50,000 to put out. But the firemen can't live on nothing waiting for the next big fire to come along.

Amhran Nua

TPD wrote: »

If there are no fires for 2 months, the next one might cost $50,000 to put out. But the firemen can't live on nothing waiting for the next big fire to come along.

They don't, they are paid for by the nearby urban area.

TPD

Amhran Nua wrote: »

They don't, they are paid for by the nearby urban area.

The number of firemen and resources needed to cover the nearby urban area will be paid for by the nearby urban area. To cover more land (and more fires) will require more firemen and resources, which must be paid for by those rural dwellers who desire the protection. Those who don't desire the protection, don't pay.

Amhran Nua

TPD wrote: »

The number of firemen and resources needed to cover the nearby urban area will be paid for by the nearby urban area. To cover more land (and more fires) will require more firemen and resources, which must be paid for by those rural dwellers who desire the protection. Those who don't desire the protection, don't pay.

So tell us, what's your objection to just taxing everyone in the rural area like the rest of the civilised world?

TPD

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So tell us, what's your objection to just taxing everyone in the rural area like the rest of the civilised world?

I don't have an objection to that, it's seemingly the people in the rural area that do. As it stands, you get the service if you pay for it. Simple enough to understand, and I know I'd be paying my $75 a year if I lived there. If I decided not to pay, I wouldn't expect the service.

Alun

Biggins wrote: »

That how fire services in some places originally started out.
You had to pay up front to be covered by one service or another before they would even come to you.

Indeed. In fact in England the first fire services were started by the insurance companies. If you were insured you had to attach a plaque known as a fire mark from the insurance company on the front of your house. If you didn't have one, tough luck, your house is allowed to burn to the ground. Some of these plaques can still be seen today on some old houses in London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_insurance_marks

marco_polo

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You asked what it had to do with libertarianism, I pointed out that you had quoted a libertarian mouthpiece.

I kind of faded out after "freeloading jerks". Your other articles were decent however and I do agree with them in many places, something you seem intent on ignoring.

The "pay or die" aspect of the story has surely not escaped your attention. Plus that most of the people in the area were in fact paying the rates.

Anything I have read suggests that Fire Brigade are obliged to act if human life is in danger, which was clearly not the case in this instance.

No, its not completely different, its exactly the same. All those people were voluntarily paying rates to the fire department, the vast majority of whom won't have their house burn down. But since it wasn't tax funded, we get the lovely situation where we have the fire department sitting picking their teeth while smoke fills the sky.

It is tax funded, and the higher urban property tax that funds the fire service is not voluntary. I just fail to have complete sympathy for those who expect the same level of protection without paying for it.

If you want to blame Libertarianism then the best place to start would probably be the county authorities who will not provide a tax funded county wide fire service or the rural dwellers who do not want to pay the taxes that would pay for the services (I cannot say which of these is closest to the truth). The only reason I started posting this thread is that I was objecting to the notion that that the fire department main party to blame for this sorry mess.

EDIT: I have read over the last few pages agian and we are probably in agreement on more things than not.

Amhran Nua

TPD wrote: »

If there are no fires for 2 months, the next one might cost $50,000 to put out. But the firemen can't live on nothing waiting for the next big fire to come along.

First off, you have zero basis for that number. It could be $5000 for all you know.

TPD wrote: »

The number of firemen and resources needed to cover the nearby urban area will be paid for by the nearby urban area. To cover more land (and more fires) will require more firemen and resources, which must be paid for by those rural dwellers who desire the protection. Those who don't desire the protection, don't pay.

Another baseless assumption. You have no idea how the fire department is structured, and yet you are stating it as fact.

TPD wrote: »

I don't have an objection to that, it's seemingly the people in the rural area that do.

Actually its the political leadership that seem to be making the decisions:

“Negotiations with the Obion County Commission and the county mayor have been ongoing for over four years in an attempt to resolve this issue. Our county government has repeatedly steered our fire departments and towns toward the subscription-based response program, and the Obion County government has mandated by a vote in the county commission stating that rural fire protection will only be established by a subscription program,” he said.

Imagine that, political leaders taking decisions not in the best interests of the populace, where have we heard that before...

phantom_lord

So do you object to the fact that they let the house burn down?

Or the fact that the fire service was subscription based rather than a local tax?

Amhran Nua

marco_polo wrote: »

Anything I have read suggests that Fire Brigade are obliged to act if human life is in danger, which was clearly not the case in this instance.

We run into problems then when everyone just says there might be someone inside and they aren't sure.

Amhran Nua

phantom_lord wrote: »

So do you object to the fact that they let the house burn down?

Or the fact that the fire service was subscription based rather than a local tax?

One is a problem with the existing system, the other is a reason for the problem. you can't object to both?

karma_

Alun wrote: »

Indeed. In fact in England the first fire services were started by the insurance companies. If you were insured you had to attach a plaque known as a fire mark from the insurance company on the front of your house. If you didn't have one, tough luck, your house is allowed to burn to the ground. Some of these plaques can still be seen today on some old houses in London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_insurance_marks

Goes farther back than that, it was Marcus Licinius Crassus who began the fire service in Rome around 90 BC.

Here's how it worked;

Crassus would have his Slaves rush to properties that were burning, but they would take no action until Crassus had bargained a good price from a panic stricken property owner, teh slaves then rushed to extinguish the flames. If no price could be agreed then the property was left to burn(sound familiar?). Crassus became a very wealthy man.

TPD

Amhran Nua wrote: »

First off, you have zero basis for that number. It could be $5000 for all you know.

Yup, hence 'might'. Neither of us know, I was giving a 'worst case scenario' type example. If everyone paid their subscription, there'd be no chance whatsoever of it getting that bad.

Also, I had no basis for the number the first time you quoted me and replied.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Another baseless assumption. You have no idea how the fire department is structured, and yet you are stating it as fact.

I'm applying logic to it. Present me with a more reasonable theory, and I'll agree with you.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Actually its the political leadership that seem to be making the decisions:

Imagine that, political leaders taking decisions not in the best interests of the populace, where have we heard that before...

Political leadership in a democratic country. If enough people disagree with it, they can rise up and effect change. In the meantime, they can pay the fee as subscription rather than tax, and reap the same benefits.

Amhran Nua

TPD wrote: »

Yup, hence 'might'. Neither of us know, I was giving a 'worst case scenario' type example. If everyone paid their subscription, there'd be no chance whatsoever of it getting that bad.

Also, I had no basis for the number the first time you quoted me and replied.

Worst case scenarios are rarely the reality. I was on the phone the first time.

TPD wrote: »

I'm applying logic to it. Present me with a more reasonable theory, and I'll agree with you.

Logic based on your extensive experience setting up and organising fire departments?

TPD wrote: »

Political leadership in a democratic country. If enough people disagree with it, they can rise up and effect change.

Oddly enough fire rates aren't usually high on the lists of demands from revolutionaries. And as our experience in Ireland can attest, the populations of entire countries can get shafted in between elections. So your assertion that the people in the area "want" it doesn't bear close examination.

TPD

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Worst case scenarios are rarely the reality. I was on the phone the first time.

But it's better to prevent them from being a possibility.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Logic based on your extensive experience setting up and organising fire departments?

That would fall under 'experience' rather than logic. I was basing my thinking on 'things cost money therefore someone has to pay for it'. I figured it should be the people who want/will be covered by the service.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Oddly enough fire rates aren't usually high on the lists of demands from revolutionaries. And as our experience in Ireland can attest, the populations of entire countries can get shafted in between elections. So your assertion that the people in the area "want" it doesn't bear close examination.

Lack of democracy is another reason for the people to revolt then, on top of a state funded fire department.

Manic Moran

So fee or no fee, the department remains fully funded, the $75 is just extras.

It's fully funded for the area it's designed to cover. So many thousand houses over so many dozen square miles requires this many fire trucks and that many fire houses to provide adequate coverage, meaning that the city's taxes need to bring in Y many dollars to fully fund it.

When you start adding in places outside the city, your ratio of trucks to square mile, or trucks to houses, or whatever the coverage is based on, goes down. To maintain the ratio and thus level of service, you need to add equipment and personnel, and to do that, you need more funding. Either by raising city taxes higher, which I submit is unfair on the city dwellers, or gaining the funds from the people outside the city they would be funding.

Ultimately it appears it is up to the county, and I suspect that the main reason why the County has resisted introducting a taxed county wide fireservice, prefering instead to rely on subscriptionsbased services, is quite likely because the introduction of the additional tax on Rural dwellers would be politically unpopular.

It's possible that the county is so sparsely populated outside of the cities that there's is no economically possible way of providing an effective independent fire service. That leaves open the possibility of a contract between the county and the municipal services paid for by county taxes, but then you also have the question of 'of that sparse population, what percentage would benefit from this contract?' May very well be that a subscription service is the most cost-effective and equitable way of doing it.

Eh, you quoted a Cato institute mouthpiece and then come back saying it has nothing to do with libertarianism

The statement by the Cato mouthpiece seems pretty objective and easily verifiable. If he quoted the Cato institute saying 'The sky appears blue', would you argue that because of the source it must be disregarded? Here's the question. Is the statement true?

NTM

Victor

Risteard wrote: »

We were asked about this in our Economics lecture. Lecturer asked how many people thought the fire brigade was right and how many thought he was wrong.

I can kind of see both sides to argument. On one side, the fire brigade's side, one could adopt the attitude that if the F.B. did put out the fire and took the payment afterwards, then there could be some people who wouldn't pay at all and just pay if their house was on fire. Then nobody would pay regularly, I mean why would you pay for something that might happen if you can just deal with it if it does happen.

They could charge the full economic cost of the service - say $1,000-2,000. That would be capitalism in action.

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

The home owners had a choice (and, I would imagine, they have that same choice every year), and they chose not to buy the protection.

I'm sure hte mafia works something like that.

Plus, I don't think that one city (the one with the fire department) is able to tax another city (the one witout). Also, if you look at a map of South Fulton it shows that Fulton (just north of the city in question) is across state lines. So I also doubt that any city in Kentucky would be able to charge any tax to the city residents in Tennessee.

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown doesn't supply its own water, its supplied by Dublin City (the water actually comes from Couty Wicklow). Traffic management in South Dublin comes from the city. Parts of Donegal get their fire services from the Northern Ireland Fire Service across the border. Perhaps Tennessee should tax its citizens / property and either have a fire department or hire the services of one?

So, 11 September 2001, what if the owners* of the WTC hadn't paid their taxes?


* I think there was some fuzzy arrangemnt between the PANYNJ and a landlord, but they are separate from the city..

jackiebaron

phantom_lord wrote: »

They would have saved the house if he had paid the fee. And they wouldn't have needed to be there in the first place if the guy hadn't started the fire.

It is his fault that the house was burnt down.

Wish I was as tough and macho as you.

jackiebaron

BluePlanet wrote: »

Over here in the civilised part of the world, when we ring our socialised Fire Brigade we expect them to gear-up, not put us on hold while they check with Accounts first.

:rolleyes:

Hear Hear! And I can just imagine topper75 refusing police assistance as he's being glassed in a night-club because he disagrees with socialised police protection. I can just imagine him waving off the mountain rescue people as he slowly slips into hypothermia-induced unconsciousness after getting trapped on his climbing trip because, well, mountain rescue services are socialised and he doesn't believe they should exist. So being a person of the utmost integrity and sticking to his principles he will gladly forego such services and suffer or even die in order to be true to his beliefs.

gizmo

Victor wrote: »

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown doesn't supply its own water, its supplied by Dublin City (the water actually comes from Couty Wicklow). Traffic management in South Dublin comes from the city. Parts of Donegal get their fire services from the Northern Ireland Fire Service across the border. Perhaps Tennessee should tax its citizens / property and either have a fire department or hire the services of one?

And if they did that there'd be complaints of the federal government interference and the creeping in of "socialism". :pac:

MCMLXXXIII

Victor wrote: »

They could charge the full economic cost of the service - say $1,000-2,000. That would be capitalism in action.

Yes, but as I said earlier: if you have a hard time getting someone to pay $75, it's going to be harder to get them to pay a few thousand - especially when they need to pay for the repairs to their now-patrly-damaged house. Lawyers charge a lot more than the fire brigade would.

Victor wrote: »

I'm sure hte mafia works something like that.

Yes, I'm sure they do. However, the mafia works off blackmale or death threats, etc. In the US the fire brigade would be legally obligated to save a human life, just like the hospitals, etc. for people that are uninsured or can't afford the service. Insurance companies don't pay for a new car if you don't make the payments, magazines are not sent to the house unless you buy a subscription, the phone is shut off if you don't pay the bill...(we could go on). This fire brigade is a subscription service, and, like everything else, they shouldn't have to provide their services to people that do not subscribe; which leads me into...

Victor wrote: »

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown doesn't supply its own water, its supplied by Dublin City (the water actually comes from Couty Wicklow). Traffic management in South Dublin comes from the city. Parts of Donegal get their fire services from the Northern Ireland Fire Service across the border. Perhaps Tennessee should tax its citizens / property and either have a fire department or hire the services of one?

So, 11 September 2001, what if the owners* of the WTC hadn't paid their taxes?


* I think there was some fuzzy arrangemnt between the PANYNJ and a landlord, but they are separate from the city..

...you're right, and I guess I didn't think about that. However, each city charges another for the services. How do the cities get money? Well, taxes of course! What happens if someone doesn't pay thier taxes (for two years in the US)? The government takes the property away and auctions it to the highest bidder (the first bid, of course, is to match the amount of taxes owed)! So, either way, the government (who supplies the services or contracts ) always gets their money. Of course, we are talking about an area/disctict/city that chose to have less taxes and less services (which goes well with the current "shrink the size of the government" theme), so once again: the choice was that of the non-paying, non-subscribing citizen.

Port Authorites don't pay taxes, so the WTC was a loss to the government, not a private company - which is probably why it is taking so long to rebuild. :rolleyes: I'm pretty sure it was managed by a private company, but I'm not exactly sure who.