Firefighters Watch a Man's House Burn Down

[Helicoradian]

The tax and moral issue aside, Never met a firefighter who would just stand around and let something burn if anything could be done about it. If they let the house burn completely down without taking any action (which is what it looks like) those guys are not real firefighters imo.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Your argument doesn't change the fact that the firefighters had a moral obligation to act according to the situation. The tax doesn't matter when you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars more at stake, plus three dogs and a cat.

It sets a precedent. You don't have to pay the tax, just pay a lump sum if your house catches fire. This turns what was a public service, into a business. The fire department would start to depend on fires regularly to pay their bills. They had no moral obligation as they are free individuals in a libertarianesque state. Laissez-faire my friend.

[Human No More]

Libertarianism != no taxes. The entire point is that some government is necessary (as opposed to anarchism), it that governments should keep out of people's PERSONAL lives (free speech, no censorship, etc.). There is still a recognisable need for some functions.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Libertarianism != no taxes. The entire point is that some government is necessary (as opposed to anarchism), it that governments should keep out of people's PERSONAL lives (free speech, no censorship, etc.). There is still a recognisable need for some functions.

But a key tenant is choice in what functions you wish to partake in. You cant force anybody to do anything in a libertarian system if they dont wish it.

[Woodsprite]

That's assuming anarchism is equal to libertarianism, when it isn't. The government does (as HNM pointed out) have a responsibility to carry out certain functions, like upholding the law, keeping the place safe, and acting when a person's house catches fire. Laissez-faire has nothing to do with public action, which includes what I just described. There are certain things in society that are reserved for state interference. That's saying, the police will get involved if domestic violence occurs, because the law can be broken. And firefighters should get involved if a fire occurs when private individuals cannot take care of the situation on their own.

The man should sue the fire department for the cost of what he lost; there was a lot more at stake than a $75 fee when (as I said) hundreds of thousands of dollars were lost, as well as emotional loss in that his three dogs and cat were killed. What if there were children in the house?

[Isard]

I don't know. That didn't happen. He opted out of a government program, and paid the price for it.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

This individual decided the risk of losing his house in a fire was not worth the fee of fire fighting service. If people want to live in a society where public services will help anyone in need of their services, they should not apply policies that allow those who want the service to pay for it and those who do not to not pay for it; it's bad economics. Programs like the fire department fee program in this instance is designed mainly to eliminate free riders. The problem is, should you still provide services to those who don't want to pay for them. If you do provide such services, then the free riders will still be able to free ride and no one will pay for the services. So the best choice will be to make payment for the service mandatory (something like a tax of some sort).