Posted on 10/05/2010 2:32:07 PM PDT by Newton
Which part of the phrase “bill them later” was unclear to you?
[MUSIC] One of these things is not like the others... one of these things doesn't belong... [/MUSIC]
["Car Insurance" expands to fill the frame]
Liability coverage for driving on the same roads as everyone else is another example where external costs and benefits (i.e. the risk of totaling someone else's car, or worse). That is why it is not, in fact, treated as a free-market commodity to be accepted or rejected at one's discretion -- if you drive on the public roads, you buy car insurance or you incur legal penalties. (Driving only one one's own property avoids the externalities issue, and in that case insurance is not required.)
THIS is Atlas Shrugging, people! We need more of this, if we are ever going to defeat the entitlement, irresponsible mentality permeating our culture today.
This also underscores the (soon-to-be) fatal flaw of Obamacare, where no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Don’t pay premiums for years, then when your appendix explodes, cut a check for one month premiums and expect treatment.
I believe many here are still not grasping that in this case, fire service was de-coupled from basic muncipality-provided, tax-supported services. Otherwise I am at a loss to understand the views of those on this Conservative forum.
...that guy is gonna be on the hook for thousands of dollars! Good thing we were smart enough to just pay the $75/year, huh?"
Well, there's the basic problem.
We don't let people opt out of defense, because it makes no sense to sit back and let invaders and terrorists use non-paying people's land as a staging area. Allowing a fire to have a staging area to build to the point where it spreads to other people's property is just as absurd.
The homeowner in this case lived outside of, and paid no taxes to, the town which has the fire department. The town contracts with individual homeowners for fire protection. They charge a paltry $75 for the year for the service. If they did not they would not be able to offer the service. The homeowners in his neighborhood chose not to include a tax for government services but rather to contract on their own for these services. The homeowner in this instance did not choose to avail himself of that insurance. It would be the same as expecting an insurance company to pay a claim you didn’t purchase insurance for.
Having not taken advantage of the fire protection he may well have voided the insurance on his house as well.
This is a classic ATLAS SHRUGGED moment and you failed. Using this same line of reasoning one would assume you would be a huge fan of Obamacare. That way you need never pay that pesky medi al insurance and you can then demand the same level of treatment as everyone else who did.
After all, what is more important, taking personal responsibility for something as inconsequential as protecting your home, family and, possessions from fire or demanding that someone else take care of it for you.
People seem to welcome a nanny state and this is a simple litmus test
The principle is the same. What's your answer?
If he's not going to answer my Economics 101 point about externalities, what makes you think he's going to answer you?
You are comparing saving a human life, to saving property. Not at all in the same league. To spray a man with a hose presents ZERO threat to you; you cannot say the same thing about going into a burning building. Or going into a burning building of an idiot who may sue you for not putting the fire out ‘fast enough’ for his tastes; or for suing you for getting water on his stamp collection; or for any firemen who may be hurt during this action - and are exempted from their insurance for performing a dangerous task on a building that is NOT in their contracted area.
Can you see the difference? I call it ‘putting on the Big Boy pants and being a “Man”. Liberals call this the job of the Government.
If the county had 700 homes (small county), they could not afford a $1 Million FD. However, if 95% of these homes each paid $75, you would have a revenue stream of just under $50K/yr - or $4,125/month. Pretty pitiful, huh?
Now, let’s pretend that on this imaginary budget - the FD can exist with 100% voluntary Firemen, a donated building and a used Firetruck.
If they serve a home that is not covered, then why would anyone else pay for coverage? You cannot predict or budget how many fires ‘might’ happen - ideally the firetruck would never leave the building.
So, the instant the public realizes that their home will be serviced WHEN/IF there is a fire - the monthly income goes to ZERO. The fire station closes and now NO ONE has access to a firetruck - and the county is to sparsely populated to increase the tax base to buy one. Bottom line - everyone loses.
However, now consider the 5% of the remaining idiots who watch another idiot’s home burn to the ground. I’d wager that maybe half of these idiots of this group will manage to pony up $75 to ‘insure’ their homes.
You simply can’t fix stupid - and it’s not the Goverment’s job to try.
Exactly, and I wouldn't blame them for rejecting his claim which will really leave him holding the bag. I heard separately he claims they forgot to pay the 75.00. By the time this is done he will claim they never got a bill etc. We have a volunteer fire department, but the financing isn't dependent on this way of financing for now obvious reasons.
No, this is not a volunteer fire department. It is a fire department of a nearby city. The rural county residents (not incorporated into any city) requested that the city extend fire protection services to them, and the city offered the arrangement to have its fire department service the rural residents if they paid the subscription fee for the service.
Bill them for what? If you notice that a property has grown up with weeds and brush and is creating a fire hazard as well as a breeding ground for dangerous animals that threaten the children who play right next to the property, so you take it upon yourself, even though you have no contractual relationship with the property owner, to perform a very expensive cleanup and renovation of the property, when you send your bill to the property owner he will probably laugh in your face (even if he does thank you for cleaning up his lot).
It is interesting that you use the car insurance example for driving on public roads as analogous to this situation, especially when you point out that if one limits one's driving to one's own property the externality issue is avoided. It is the private property rights and responsibilities relative to externalities that makes this situation so interesting AND that also makes it interesting that you are taking a position pretty much opposite of the libertarian and free market positions that you appear to usually espouse.
1. The residents of this rural, unincorporated area CHOSE to buy property in a rural unincorporated area that did not have any kind of fire department. By making this choice the residents chose to live in a place and situation where they must assume responsibility for protecting their own property from fire OR must form some kind of cooperative among themselves for fire protection OR must make arrangements to obtain fire protection from another party such as a nearby city or a commercial fire protection service.
2. The nearby city was not obligated to offer service outside of its boundaries, but in response to the request of the rural residents, the city offered to provide services to those residents who paid an annual fee for fire protection. Economically, this is a losing proposition for the city as the potential costs and liabilities of responding to just one fire outside its boundaries probably exceeds the combined annual fee revenue from all the participating rural residents, but for whatever reason the city fire department agreed to extend this service.
3. The residents who CHOSE to own rural unincorporated property therefore also made a CHOICE as to whether or not to avail themselves of the fire protection services that had been extended. People CHOOSE where to buy property and base those choices on several different criteria. Rural property typically has fewer government services than urban or suburban properties. Rural property owners accept certain responsibilities for providing those services for themselves as a result.
The problem here is that the externalities issue isn’t avoided for fires as easily as it is for driving, as evidenced by the damage to a neighboring property (owned by a paying customer of the service) when the fire spread.
So what is your solution? Annexation of the area by the city which would force the residents to pay for the city services? Personal freedom and personal responsibility go hand in hand. The neighbor’s property was protected just as the fire department was contracted to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.