Earlier quoted context omitted.
The firefighting fee was $75. Wouldn't it have been more "economical" to accept what he offered to pay, on the spot, and save the man's house? Instead of teaching him a lesson? He was willing to pay thousands. I mean, I am all for free market, but libertarians are pushing the limits of common sense just to maintain intellectual consistency. Isn't there a room for "late fee", or "environmental damage", or just good ol…
No the insurance was $75. See the difference? Everyone's small fee upfront is what purchased all the equipment. If you wait 'til after, then you've got nothing when you need it. And a man who won't pay up $75, will he pay thousands once you've already put the fire out ?
Some search-and-rescue services (I believe in Norway, for one set of examples) have a nominal, voluntary fee that hikers and skiers can opt to pay or not. If payers need rescue, they don't have to pay anything beyond that original fee. If non-payers get rescued, they get a big bill for search helicopter fuel, labor, etc. spent in looking for them.
Something like that seems sensible to me - if the guy had said, "Yes, please put out my house, I'm aware you'll bill me,", maybe signing a waiver or whatever to prevent problems with the firefighters' insurance company, then the firefighters could try to save his house and then the city could bill him, then sue him or garnish his wages, etc. if he refused to pay.