forgot to pay fire service fee; house burned

they doused his neighbor's property to keep the fire off it, since the neighbor had paid his fee ($75).

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/firefighters-let-home-burn-after-finding-owner-didnt-pay-annual-fee/19662595

well, maybe he didn't forget. in the Comments it says:

78. October 6, 2010 8:19 pm Link

Joe’s right — and in another part of Tennessee, a municipality that followed the “send a big bill after the fire if they hadn’t paid the subscription fee” collected less than half of what was billed under that policy.

What is startling to me is that this same family whose house just burned down had a previous fire in their chimney and had also not paid the subscription fee that year. But the fire department came out from the city and fought the fire anyway, and the homeowner assumed that they’d do so again this time. This wasn’t a one-time goof on his part — it was a pattern of choosing not to pay. He may be a nice guy, but he’s a free-loader.

The folks in the city of South Fulton can’t force the county to establish a taxation district (which the county has previously opposed) but I can see one of the possible consequences of this situation being the city deciding that they won’t offer ANY fire protection service to households outside their city limits next year. Why should they put up with this grief at all?
— Ziggle

(the house is outside the city, and the city only services fires outside the city if the property owners have paid a subscription fee.)

It is morally reprehensible to watch someone's house burn when you are in a position to prevent it from happening. None of the various circumstances involved alter that fact. Anyone who imagines that the lack of a $75 subscription fee justifies such apathy is morally bankrupt. That is where libertarian "free" market philosophy ultimately leads you. People have no inherent value. They're only worth what they able (or willing) to pay for. If someone didn't pay their hypothetical $75 police subscription fee, would the police be justified in idly watching someone be murdered?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
they doused his neighbor's property to keep the fire off it, since the neighbor had paid his fee ($75).

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/firefighters-let-home-burn-after-finding-owner-didnt-pay-annual-fee/19662595

I don't understand, are we talking about USA now? USA of today?

Or are we talking about some what-if-situation if Obama (or whoever) remain president (or whatever), or lose his presidensy (or something)? I.e. some hypothetical situation?

Originally posted by rwingett
That is where libertarian "free" market philosophy ultimately leads you. People have no inherent value. They're only worth what they able (or willing) to pay for. If someone didn't pay their hypothetical $75 police subscription fee, would the police be justified in idly watching someone be murdered?

recc'd, could'nt have said it better myself.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't understand, are we talking about USA now? USA of today?

Or are we talking about some what-if-situation if Obama (or whoever) remain president (or whatever), or lose his presidensy (or something)? I.e. some hypothetical situation?

Now. It happened just recently.

Don't taxes include a fire service fee?
How problematic.

Originally posted by rwingett
Now. It happened just recently.

In the country I live, when my house is on fire, the fire brigade come and put out the fire. For free. I don't even have to thank them, it's their job.

I'm very surprised how it works in USA!

That just shows how horribly inefficient fire department insurance is. You need to have "socialized" fire protection.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In the country I live, when my house is on fire, the fire brigade come and put out the fire. For free. I don't even have to thank them, it's their job.

I'm very surprised how it works in USA!

That's how it also works in most of the US. As of yet this example is an isolated incident, but I fear it will ultimately become more the norm.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is morally reprehensible to watch someone's house burn when you are in a position to prevent it from happening. None of the various circumstances involved alter that fact. Anyone who imagines that the lack of a $75 subscription fee justifies such apathy is morally bankrupt. That is where libertarian "free" market philosophy ultimately leads you. People h olice subscription fee, would the police be justified in idly watching someone be murdered?

In Wajomastan, you'd have to call the police and inform them they you were about to be murdered. At that point, you and the police would negotiate a price you were willing to pay for them to provide the service of preventing you being murdered. This is how individuals conduct their business to maximize freedom.

Originally posted by rwingett
That's how it also works in most of the US. As of yet this example is an isolated incident, but I fear it will ultimately become more the norm.

What's happening with good old USA? It is really that bad?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In the country I live, when my house is on fire, the fire brigade come and put out the fire. For free. I don't even have to thank them, it's their job.

I'm very surprised how it works in USA!

That's not how it works in most places. I never heard of anyone paying a fire brigade fee until I saw this article.

Originally posted by sh76
That's not how it works in most places. I never heard of anyone paying a fire brigade fee until I saw this article.

Apparently they bill you in Ireland for putting out a fire on your property or in your vehicle. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/huge-differences-revealed-in-fees-for-fire-callouts-2364636.html