Libertarian Fire Service

Pages

The news report said that it took two hours for the fire to spread from the burn barrels to the house. I can't seem to find how far out of town he lived, but politics aside, there was likely time to stop the fire before it hit the house (especially if this fell within the 11 minute average response time).

I'm kind of curious what the hell they were burning that couldn't be contained with a garden hose, must have been something more than paper.

ruhk wrote:

Something that libertarians tend to miss is that we live in a society, which requires a certain level of interdependence and co-operation amongst individuals.

I have never missed that fact that we live in a society and have no problem with voluntary cooperation amongst individuals.

ruhk wrote:

Functions tend to get placed in the hands of a governing body simply because it's the most reliable way to ensure that a base level of needs gets met for the most people, the "I've got mine, you've got yours" approach.

The governing body of Obeon county had a system in place, part of which was voluntary for certain citizens depending on their geographical location. An individual made the choice to not participate in that system, yet most other people are still protected. Does that make the system broken?

ruhk wrote:

This system isn't perfect, and can be gamed at times, but leaving these things up to the free market tends to lead to a very few individuals getting much more than they need while the rest get little or none, exemplified by the slogan of a libertarian co-worker I once had: "I've got mine so f*ck you."

How does one objectively prove that someone has "much more than they need"? Does the collective, aka 'society', make that decision for the individual?

SallyNasty wrote:

I just don't think that the free market is the answer for everything.

It's not - but neither is government. On the whole, people being free to make their own decisions is a better, but not perfect, system.

Robear wrote:

Cranick assumed that they would provide coverage with payment, because in the past they *had*.

No, he assumed they would provide coverage without payment, and was quoted as saying so - because in the past, they had.

That has *nothing* to do with the fact that they are a government function.

It has everything to do with their fire service being a government function. It's why there was no one else to turn to, and it's why his house burned to the ground.

Really? In Obion County? And again, the assumption here was not that government would cover him - he *knew* they would not, which is why he offered money.

He offered them money only after they told him they wouldn't put out the fire. He assumed up to that point that he would simply be covered, and was quoted as saying so.

He did not say "I thought you guys would put it out even if I didn't pay", he said "I'll give you money because I forgot to pay". You're creating a context which is simply not there.

Yes, he did:

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Also, the taxpayers don't *subsidize* fire services - they pay for them outright. This does not make private service impossible to provide, nor is it outlawed.

Yes, it does - and in this case, it's almost certain that city taxpayers are subsidizing the county fire service - in addition to paying for their own. How can a private service compete with a service that is funded by forcibly extracting the necessary wealth from the population and thus is both immune to competition and cannot go out of business? If it was financially possible, wouldn't there be numerous private fire services around the country? They don't have to outlaw it because it's nearly impossible to do financially - citizens are usually forced to pay for the government fire service on top of any private fire service.

JayHawker wrote:

Yes, I want government funded monopolies with money stolen from the citizens for our fire protection. I don't want competitive fire protection and the drawbacks it encompasses. I don't think there is another issue that so directly describes how woefully backwards Libertarianism is.

How exactly is not wanting to have organized monopolistic force-based protection rackets taking wealth from people BACKWARDS? When the Mafia does it, we call it a crime. Think about what you're asserting here - instead of providing your own protection or grouping together with your neighbors to provide protection, you're perfectly willing to take the money they earned, by force, in order to protect yourself ... while at the same time calling libertarians selfish. It's pretty mind-boggling when you think about it.

MacBrave wrote:
ruhk wrote:

This system isn't perfect, and can be gamed at times, but leaving these things up to the free market tends to lead to a very few individuals getting much more than they need while the rest get little or none, exemplified by the slogan of a libertarian co-worker I once had: "I've got mine so f*ck you."

How does one objectively prove that someone has "much more than they need"? Does the collective, aka 'society', make that decision for the individual?

There is an obvious disparity between those who, for instance, are building a third garage on their McMansion to store their expanding sports car collection, and those who have to work three jobs to feed their family. If anyone can't tell the difference then they have deeper problems they should be worrying about. I have nothing against wealth per se (I'm doing perfectly fine), but the current economic system eventually leads to widening gaps between the rich and poor where a small percentage of people control more and more wealth while the rest are barely able to subsist. I would gladly pay more in taxes if it meant my neighbors were that much safer and more secure, because I realize that we don't live in a bubble- actions and influences ripple outward and form a complex network of behaviour. The primary cause of crime is economic disparity, if we can make the lives of those around us better, we are not only improving their living conditions, but ours as well.

...and then there is this recent princeton study:

time business[/url]]People say money doesn't buy happiness. Except, according to a new study from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, it sort of does — up to about $75,000 a year. The lower a person's annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don't report any greater degree of happiness.
...
So, where does the $75,000 come into play? Researchers found that lower income did not cause sadness itself but made people feel more ground down by the problems they already had. The study found, for example, that among divorced people, about 51% who made less than $1,000 a month reported feeling sad or stressed the previous day, while only 24% of those earning more than $3,000 a month reported similar feelings. Among people with asthma, 41% of low earners reported feeling unhappy, compared with about 22% of the wealthier group. Having money clearly takes the sting out of adversities.

At $75,000, that effect disappears. For people who earn that much or more, individual temperament and life circumstances have much more sway over their lightness of heart than money. The study doesn't say why $75,000 is the benchmark, but "it does seem to me a plausible number at which people would think money is not an issue," says Deaton. At that level, people probably have enough expendable cash to do things that make them feel good, like going out with friends. (The federal poverty level for a family of four, by the way, is $22,050.)
But in the bigger view of their lives, people's evaluations were much more tied to their income. The more they made, the more they felt their life was going well. The survey asked respondents to place themselves on a life-satisfaction ladder, with the first rung meaning their lives were not going well and the 10th rung meaning it was as good as it could be. The higher their income, the higher the rung people chose. "Importantly, the same percentage increase in income has the same effect on evaluation for everyone, rich or poor alike, even though the absolute dollar amounts differ," the authors write. So every 10% rise in annual income moves people up the satisfaction ladder the same amount, whether they're making $25,000 or $100,000. "High incomes don't bring you happiness, but they do bring you a life you think is better," conclude the authors.

So clearly we have an obvious income plateau at $75000/year, above which the added cash flow adds nothing of value to a person's life than increasingly expensive iterations of their toys. Sounds like a pretty clear benchmark, there.

MacBrave wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Something that libertarians tend to miss is that we live in a society, which requires a certain level of interdependence and co-operation amongst individuals.

I have never missed that fact that we live in a society and have no problem with voluntary cooperation amongst individuals.

Our society is pretty complex, so we would need some way of organizing all these volunteers in order to get stuff done. Then we would need a place for all these people to meet so we can work out WHAT needs to get done, and WHERE. Unfortunately, it really isn't logistically possible to have EVERYONE meet in one area, perhaps we can just get representatives from each area to come and hash things out. We could leave it to the individual areas to pick their representatives. Of course, not everyone is going to agree, so maybe we should enact some sort of voting system in place to help resolve conflict. Hmm. Maybe it's just me, but this is starting to sound familiar.

ruhk wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but this is starting to sound familiar.

It is familiar. There are literally tens of thousands of organizations that work on that basis. It's familiar right up until the point where people start pointing guns at other people in order to take their wealth. Then it becomes wrong. It's a pretty straightforward concept.

Aetius wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but this is starting to sound familiar.

It is familiar. There are literally tens of thousands of organizations that work on that basis. It's familiar right up until the point where people start pointing guns at other people in order to take their wealth. Then it becomes wrong. It's a pretty straightforward concept.

Guns? I assume you mean the antiquated and tired "taxes are violence" trope. I happily pay my taxes, even though I'm a small business owner and my taxes tend to be a pain in the ass. As it is, I realize that they are going towards things I use on a daily basis, streets, utilities, security and emergency services, etc- as well as things that I would like to do but can't reasonably take care of myself, such as aiding the old, infirm and poor, helping educate people, etc. They also go towards several things I don't approve of, but that's the downfall of other people existing and leading lives outside of mine.

Robear wrote:

Cranick assumed that they would provide coverage with payment, because in the past they *had*.

No, he assumed they would provide coverage without payment, and was quoted as saying so - because in the past, they had.

Oops, I guess I got that wrong.

Quote:

Also, the taxpayers don't *subsidize* fire services - they pay for them outright. This does not make private service impossible to provide, nor is it outlawed.

Yes, it does - and in this case, it's almost certain that city taxpayers are subsidizing the county fire service - in addition to paying for their own. How can a private service compete with a service that is funded by forcibly extracting the necessary wealth from the population and thus is both immune to competition and cannot go out of business? If it was financially possible, wouldn't there be numerous private fire services around the country? They don't have to outlaw it because it's nearly impossible to do financially - citizens are usually forced to pay for the government fire service on top of any private fire service.

As I understand it, a subsidy is a government payment which supplements another source of income. What's the other source of income for taxpayer-funded fire services?

As to the other part of your question, I just assumed that the incredible inefficiency and ineptitude of government services would be easily overcome by a private provider. Are you now arguing that government services are priced competitively? That would be a change.

Note that the source of funding does not create immunity to competition or an indefinite lifespan. The voters could choose to replace the government service, or a private one could step in. Your last objection is wrong by the case under discussion - the county residents were *not* forced to pay for the government fire service.

It is familiar. There are literally tens of thousands of organizations that work on that basis. It's familiar right up until the point where people start pointing guns at other people in order to take their wealth. Then it becomes wrong. It's a pretty straightforward concept.

The solution, then, is to allow everyone to point guns at anyone else, for any reason, as long as they believe it's in their interest. And that'll make things better? I mean, basically your description above is the situation I expect under anarcho-libertarianism, especially since it's the *police* who are in the business of pointing guns at people "to take their wealth".

Luckily, no one's ever pointed a gun at me to make me pay my taxes.

Robear wrote:

Luckily, no one's ever pointed a gun at me to make me pay my taxes.

I have, but they were non-governmental folks collecting private taxes. It would have been nice to have some taxpayer provided police around at the time.

Aetius wrote:
JayHawker wrote:

Yes, I want government funded monopolies with money stolen from the citizens for our fire protection. I don't want competitive fire protection and the drawbacks it encompasses. I don't think there is another issue that so directly describes how woefully backwards Libertarianism is.

How exactly is not wanting to have organized monopolistic force-based protection rackets taking wealth from people BACKWARDS? When the Mafia does it, we call it a crime. Think about what you're asserting here - instead of providing your own protection or grouping together with your neighbors to provide protection, you're perfectly willing to take the money they earned, by force, in order to protect yourself ... while at the same time calling libertarians selfish. It's pretty mind-boggling when you think about it.

I question your analogy here. The tax-based government fire service is not in cahoots with fires. There's no tongue-in-cheek use of the word "protection" there, whereas in the mafia example, the mafia is solving a problem that it created.

I really don't see anything mind boggling about calling a person who prefers to let his neighbor's house burn down instead of participating in a group safety net "selfish." To the contrary, in fact.

Some of you live in an odd world strikingly different from my own reality.

It does amuse me that we managed to trot out all of the philosophical boogie men.

Seth wrote:

I question your analogy here. The tax-based government fire service is not in cahoots with fires. There's no tongue-in-cheek use of the word "protection" there, whereas in the mafia example, the mafia is solving a problem that it created.

Don't be so sure. The Government is totally in the pocket of Big Flame. Do you realize how many lobbyists fire has? Always trying to get their "pro-inferno" legislation passed through Congress...

Who will protect the children from the Fireman's agenda? They are invited into the schools, you know. Some of them are actually *teachers*... If God wanted us to fight fires, we'd all be ripped and shirtless, like in the calenders.

MacBrave wrote:

The governing body of Obeon county had a system in place, part of which was voluntary for certain citizens depending on their geographical location. An individual made the choice to not participate in that system, yet most other people are still protected. Does that make the system broken?

No, the county had no system in place for fire protection. All they had was a piece of paper that said they had a fire department but they didn't nothing to fund it. The "county" fire department only existed because the fire departments of the various cities agreed to help people who lived around their cities. There were actually areas in the county that had absolutely no fire protection because they were too far from any city. That sounds pretty danged broken.

The system was also broken from a funding perspective. Rural residents, even those who paid the $75 fee, weren't paying enough to cover the actual cost of the city fire departments protecting both the cities in which they were located and the surrounding countryside. That meant that the city residents were heavily subsidizing the fire protection services that benefited rural residents. Translated to libertarian speak, the rural residents were stealing from the city residents.

Jayhawker wrote:

FFS already. For the THIRD time:

In the late 19th century, the demand of central command for fire companies took place within cities because the fire companies would fight over fires or not put out an fire because the owners didn't have fire insurance.[citation needed] Insured properties had plaques with the insurance company's names affixed to their exterior called fire marks. This caused areas of a city to be badly damage by fires and caused many deaths. Cities started to form their own fire departments as a civil service to the public, forcing private fire companies to shut down, and merging their fire stations into the city's fire department.

Seriously, THAT is the core reason I favor local taxpayer supported fire departments. Making up that anyone in this thread has favored a federal fire department is intellectually dishonest. You might call it a straw man. We can point out that Obion country has a poor way of handing ling fire protection without implying that the federal governemn t should be in charge.

Jayhawker, we largely see eye to eye on this issue, but I did want to correct one your points.

I know wikipieda is easy, but it is not always the pinnacle of historical accuracy, note the citation needed in your quote.

Firemarks were advertising devices, think of today's "This home protected by______" signs.

Fire companies almost always tried to respond to all urban fires in the 19th century precisely because wooden cities had a tendency to burn quite easily.

NPR had an interview with a historian who has written a book on the subject.

OG_slinger wrote:

The system was also broken from a funding perspective. Rural residents, even those who paid the $75 fee, weren't paying enough to cover the actual cost of the city fire departments protecting both the cities in which they were located and the surrounding countryside. That meant that the city residents were heavily subsidizing the fire protection services that benefited rural residents. Translated to libertarian speak, the rural residents were stealing from the city residents.

What else is new? The federal government has been subsidizing rural electric and phone service for decades: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/...

And for what it's worth, I grew up in a rural area.

The feds don't have to balance their budgets like cities and local governments do, which means subsidizing someone else at the local level can't continue forever. Either they pay for the services or the service goes away.

Edwin wrote:

Another one. http://consumerist.com/2011/12/firef...

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker told WPSD-TV. "After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees."

Apparently not, eh?

And again, lots of comments failing to understand stuff or read into the history.

the story wrote:

Perhaps the city could make a deal where people who don't pay the $75 fee have to pay a $750 penalty if firefighters are called. That's just one idea that's better than making national news every time your hard-line policy is enacted.

Works... as long as the firefighters are already being called out once per year per ten county properties. Otherwise, it won't provide sufficient money to offset the costs of providing the service to the county residents (same reason to have the fee in the first place.)

Or in other words: It doesn't work, because of course they're not called out that often. Not to mention the fact that they don't have the authority to levy a fee against the people who made the call, since they're in the county, not the city. They can bill the property owner, and the property owner can ignore the bill and the city can't do a thing about it.

a commenter wrote:

I know this sounds crazy, but how about just adding the $75 to everyone's county tax bill?

The county has historically voted against raising taxes in order to pay the city to provide fire service.

The article Edwin linked also noted that the affected homeowners were not carrying homeowner's insurance. Ouch. Talk about not covering your bets.

Heretk wrote:

The article Edwin linked also noted that the affected homeowners were not carrying homeowner's insurance. Ouch. Talk about not covering your bets.

Wow. That's right up there with having a Powerball-based retirement plan.

Wow. I would have figured after last time everyone would have taken a look at their coverage.

If I was a mortgage holder in Tennessee I'd be adding a clause requiring this to all my mortgages.

momgamer wrote:

Wow. I would have figured after last time everyone would have taken a look at their coverage.

If I was a mortgage holder in Tennessee I'd be adding a clause requiring this to all my mortgages.

This. I'm actually quite surprised that mortgage holders don't.

Paleocon wrote:
momgamer wrote:

Wow. I would have figured after last time everyone would have taken a look at their coverage.

If I was a mortgage holder in Tennessee I'd be adding a clause requiring this to all my mortgages.

This. I'm actually quite surprised that mortgage holders don't.

I doubt this house had a mortgage. They didn't even have homeowners, which is also required by any mortgage I have ever seen.

Well, the photo looked like the burnt-out husk of a trailer home to me, and those are cheaper to replace than to rebuild.

Pages