Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

theferrett.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 153 posts

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#81

Post by Semiapies »

mahmud wrote: post #8
wccrawford wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't 'watching it burn'. They were protecting the neighboring houses. The ones that -had- paid to support the fire department.

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…

Incidentally, why exactly do you imagine libertarians are involved in this?

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#82

Post by tptacek »

Semiapies wrote: post #78
tptacek wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a story about a municipal fire department that had a business relationship with surrounding unincorporated communities.

Aren't both these points true?

No, because the fire department in question had nothing to do with the government that represented these homeowners, just as the fire department of Rockford, IL has nothing to do with Oak Park.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#83

Post by elbrodeur »

Semiapies wrote: post #67
elbrodeur wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring that in almost every other instance where you could have had insurance, you receive assistance and pay the price. This is not insurance, this is a protection racket. EDIT: By protection racket I mean this: I think in this scenario there is little distinction in letting something bad happen when it is well within your ability to stop it and making something bad happen. "If you don't pay up I'm not goin…

You're ignoring what I just wrote. Also, a "protection racket" is when some thugs retaliate against you if you don't pay them, not when people refuse to provide a service you've previously refused to pay for. I also have a dim view of the laws of the Alaskan city, but there's no call to throw around accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" and such just because you're angry, too.

I did gloss over your main point, sorry.

Insurance does work. It worked in this case: The neighbors houses were saved. But when insurance is the ONLY means by which a burning house can be saved we should rethink how we treat emergencies.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#84

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #56

This is coming up because of the Tennessee "firefighters watched it burn over $75" story. But there's backstory to that story. The fire department in question served a nearby town, and had no responsibility for the area where the fire occurred. As a service to people living outside their area, you could pay $75/year to get "out of area" coverage. The people who lost their house did two things to keep them from being…

But nobody is suggesting they should have just put the fire out for free . They should have put the fire out and billed him a sum many times higher than what the insurance premium would have been. The idea of insurance is to cap your liability, not to be a precondition for receiving any assistance.

Where does that logic end? If I build a house in Paulville, TX ("a gated community consisting of 100% Ron Paul supporters" on unincorporated land in West Texas), is the fire department of Dell City, TX obligated to put out fires there? How does that make sense?

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#85

Post by Semiapies »

tptacek wrote: post #82
Semiapies wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't both these points true?

No, because the fire department in question had nothing to do with the government that represented these homeowners, just as the fire department of Rockford, IL has nothing to do with Oak Park.

How does that make false the fact that the municipal fire department is run by a city? Government agencies at local and state levels make arrangements like this all the time without somehow ceasing to be run by the relevant government.

How are "libertarians" and the "free market" involved?

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#86

Post by tptacek »

elbrodeur wrote: post #83
Semiapies wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring what I just wrote. Also, a "protection racket" is when some thugs retaliate against you if you don't pay them, not when people refuse to provide a service you've previously refused to pay for. I also have a dim view of the laws of the Alaskan city, but there's no call to throw around accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" and such just because you're angry, too.

I did gloss over your main point, sorry. Insurance does work. It worked in this case: The neighbors houses were saved. But when insurance is the ONLY means by which a burning house can be saved we should rethink how we treat emergencies.

Yes. People should not be allowed to build residences in areas that don't have suitable fire coverage; the fees and taxes required to enlist surrounding communities into protecting them should be mandatory.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#87

Post by maxawaytoolong »

tomjen3 wrote: post #80
GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe where you live.

Hint: the people who will arrive with the guns are police or possibly people who works for the IRS/your tax authorities.

Nobody arrives with guns. That only happens when you are wanted for other crimes and the Feds are combining those charges with tax evasion. Tax evasion is also a different charge than simply being delinquent with your taxes.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#88

Post by tptacek »

Semiapies wrote: post #85
tptacek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the fire department in question had nothing to do with the government that represented these homeowners, just as the fire department of Rockford, IL has nothing to do with Oak Park.

How does that make false the fact that the municipal fire department is run by a city? Government agencies at local and state levels make arrangements like this all the time without somehow ceasing to be run by the relevant government. How are "libertarians" and the "free market" involved?

They aren't involved, except to the extent that the South Fulton PD made the mistake of offering market-based coverage to residents of surrounding areas when they should have just kept to their own city.

Re: What life is like in a state where firefighters are paid voluntarily

#90

Post by gojomo »

tptacek wrote: post #56

This is coming up because of the Tennessee "firefighters watched it burn over $75" story. But there's backstory to that story. The fire department in question served a nearby town, and had no responsibility for the area where the fire occurred. As a service to people living outside their area, you could pay $75/year to get "out of area" coverage. The people who lost their house did two things to keep them from being…

Exactly. A lot of this 'firestorm' of outrage is urban-dwellers not understanding rural life, and the tradeoffs rural elected officials make (and have for decades) which match their local circumstances: low population density, no fire-hydrants, well-spaced housing, etc.

In Tennessee, it was a trash fire by the landowner's grandson that got out of hand. (So there was a third thing they had to do to lose their home: engage in a risky behavior without adequate preparation after declining the subscription coverage.) And yet it was probably a perfectly legal trash fire, in the unincorporated area where it happened. (I suspect the neighboring town outlaws such fires within its city limits.)

People who can't imagine it being reasonable to burn your own trash on your own land are also going to misinterpret the other civic service differentials in such places.

Post reply on HN