Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

to me this seems to fall into the lines of extortion pay 75$ for "protection" used or not used, is there a law against this? oh ya they most likely pay for that as well, CA has come to pass, the rich will get what they need the poor will be enslaved and the middle class will be taxed to be poor, so much for the USA land of the free and the brave, it is now fee and the payed!

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
www.wpsdlocal6.com...

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

A taste of what you'd get with privatized fire-fighting services.

How awesome is that.

I'm not sure what you are upset about.

The Cranicks didn't pay, so they get no service.

I think we should apply this principle to welfare, social security, police, and national defense as well.

You if you don't pay a subscription fee for those services, you don't get to enjoy them.

This would allow us to abandon the violent IRS and income tax which strips working class people of their wealth and property by force.

edit on 5-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Enjoy them...

Like a Porsche?

To here you talk about a persons home in such a manner

Talk about violence

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Their pets burned alive while this was going on.

That is the most disgusting aspect of this story.

key word for the day boys and girls is: RESPONSIBILITY

If you don't pay, you shouldn't expect service.

Not in NAZI land at least -

Go vote so that these Irresponsible Sociopathies are fixed -

KEY WORD


HAIL!!!

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
www.wpsdlocal6.com...

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

A taste of what you'd get with privatized fire-fighting services.

How awesome is that.

I'm not sure what you are upset about.

The Cranicks didn't pay, so they get no service.

I think we should apply this principle to welfare, social security, police, and national defense as well.

You if you don't pay a subscription fee for those services, you don't get to enjoy them.

This would allow us to abandon the violent IRS and income tax which strips working class people of their wealth and property by force.

edit on 5-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

The fact that you're supporting privatized, pay-as-you-go social services shows you're truly insane by ideology.

What you don't seem to understand is the very common sense reality that people would be much LESS able to afford these crucial services if they were privatized. That is why people pool together and form communities- to do together what they can't do alone. Essentially your version of Capitalism says everyone's on their own and cant pool together for the BEST deal and the BEST use of resources. A system based on profit will have far too many glaring gaps/inequities to suffice for crucial emergency services. Capitalism is a gamble, a game, it's about f*cking around... the reason fire, police, and medical services are publicly funded/guaranteed to all is because you DON'T f*ck around with those kinds of things and just leave them to market games/ideologies. Though personally I'd like to see the police scaled down/back in many ways...

People are getting royally screwed by insurance companies right now, and you want MORE of this? Sorry, but the ability of somebody to pay fictitious currency SHOULD NEVER DICTATE their access to crucial services, support, freedoms, and benefits of society. We already have a plutocracy, and mass privatization of our current system will only set it in stone.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Their pets burned alive while this was going on.

That is the most disgusting aspect of this story.

Normally its the lefties that are beotching and moaning about tax cheats not paying their fair share.

This time, I actually get to say "they didn't pay their fair share" so they should get no service.

Pets be damned. The man elected to take total responsibility for fire protection upon himself, and his property suffered the consequences of his ill fated choices.

key word for the day boys and girls is: RESPONSIBILITY

If you don't pay, you shouldn't expect service.

And that's inherently immoral/unethical/wrong.

This isn't about responsibility of consumers, it's about the madness of our money system. If people were behaving RESPONSIBLY they would have put the damn fire out and figured out the extraneous stuff later.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


LOL

yeah, blame the fire service for not conducting charity.

No, I think not.

I think I'll blame the dumb-ass who didn't purchase fire protection for his house instead.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
As an aside -

Security services are perfectly capable of being privatized like these fire services are.

Imagine if you called the police and they actually showed up while doing everything possible to give you the highest quality of customer service possible.

Imagine being able to call a cops supervisor if he did something wrong and actually have the cop be disciplined or fired.

Imagine if cops had the exact same rights you did.

Imagine if I disliked you, I hired zee security to come and git you for assaulting me (:

Oh wait I am paying them, I am their customer, can I slip them extra to bash you over, that is pleasing the customer, can you prove anything???

Want to email the fire dept. and let them know how you feel?

Here you go.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Raist

My email.

In response to the home that burned due to the tax not being paid.

It is true that people should not get off the hook of paying bills that are due them, at the same time it is true that human moral says we are to help those who need it.

Regardless of your roles, your rules, and the small amount due this home should not have been left to burn. $75.00 stood between a home and someone’s beloved pets dying. Would it not have been better to lose $75 out of pocket even that could have been split between responding firemen (sadly I am having difficulty using that term honestly) than to let this happen? Have we digressed so far as a society that we care for nothing but a few pennies and will let those in our communities suffer?

I find it difficult to understand how each of those who watched this home burn and those defending them can lay their heads in bad at night and sleep. I find it difficult that they can look their families in the eye and not feel a great embarrassment.

In the end it was each mans choice to let this happen. So be it. Each of you has to live with that choice and will have to spend your life defending that choice. I am saddened by the choice made.

Insurance money may replace the house and property; however, it can never replace the home and the animals that died in that home.

Raist

it was wrong that they did not pay the fee but they should have billed them the $75 and maybe some type of penalty and put out the fire.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


personally i see your points but the government should only do one thing and that is to protect its citizens taxes are necessary for that so i have no problem paying those taxes.

What i see is a city (city of South Fulton.) taking advantage of the rural folks that live outside of the city limits as slaves to the city to make money from.

I will BET that the rural people there had NO vote on the rules or fees.
That in its self is a violation of the rights under the constitution, right of representation by elected officials.

As it is in the US the PTB and the Tree Huggers would like nothing better then to force everyone to live in cities where they can be controlled

Ok, upon digging just a little bit deeper (about a five minute search via google) I found this, a story that spells out what happened. These people's 21 year old dumb a$$ was burning trash in a barrel and left it unattended. This is what caused the fire in the first place.

As far as the fire department charging a fee, well, this house is in a rural unincorporated area. They are in an economically depressed area where the nearest city has extended their service to their neighbors who don't pay taxes to the city either in the form or property taxes, water and waste, etc. The yearly 75 dollar fee is a way to help pay, in part, for the expense of operating a fire truck in such a rural setting. Having lived in an area very much like this, I can say that there are no hydrants out there. The trucks have to bring in all the water and have to either run multiple trucks on large house fires or they may have to leave to refill the tanks and hope that the fire doesn't get out of control.

I feel horrible that these people forgot to pay the fee and lost their house and their pets. I would feel worse if the fire department decided to put this fire out and then others in the area decided that they would wait until a fire to pay for service causing the fire department to be unable to service the area.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

LOL

yeah, blame the fire service for not conducting charity.

No, I think not.

I think I'll blame the dumb-ass who didn't purchase fire protection for his house instead.

^This is why Anarchists laugh when somebody says they're an Anarcho-"Capitalist".

Originally posted by ANNED
What i see is a city (city of South Fulton.) taking advantage of the rural folks that live outside of the city limits as slaves to the city to make money from.

I will BET that the rural people there had NO vote on the rules or fees.
That in its self is a violation of the rights under the constitution, right of representation by elected officials.

As it is in the US the PTB and the Tree Huggers would like nothing better then to force everyone to live in cities where they can be controlled

Do you know ANY "tree huggers"?? They are typically ANTI-city. Don't find as many trees in cities, do we.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Charity is a little different than saving a home and some lives in peril. We, well most of us, rescue even evil people, because that is what good people do. We expect no compensation. I don't like sharing the planet with those who think differenttly.

I am personally on the fence about this and I will tell you why. Both parties are wrong.

No ones house should be burned to the ground over $75 bucks. The firefighters should of saved it, and sent a bill.
Arizona has a stupid law, if you try crossing flooded rivers in a car and you get stuck and they have to rescue you, you pay for the emergency services. You pay after the event.No reason for the entire house to burn down, either way the firefighters are working, at least making sure the next house doesn't catch fire.

Now, it was a $75 fee. As a parent, I have smoke detectors, I am getting ready to practise an escape route for my child. We make sure our children know how to dial 911. I can tell you, broke or not, I would of paid that fee to make sure my home was covered.

If people didn't buy flood insurance in hurricane prone states, would you blame the insurance companies for not covering the damage?

I wouldn't be willing to take that risk.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f42854acaad.jpg[/atsimg]

Well if you dont pay the extortion money and they come out to look at the fire, you can always get your picture taken with a firefighter, remember and smile

Wee Mad

It appears I was mistaken.

I thought it entirely odd that a private fire department would not have put out the fire if the man offered to pay, but I respect that it is there right to refuse service to anyone they wish.

It turns out the entire fiasco is due to government.

Mises Institute's Jefferey Tucker explains:

A strange argument emerged overnight that illustrates how little even informed people understand about the market economy and its implications. This time the debate centers on a interesting case of a man in rural Tennessee who did not pay his fire-services fee, so the fire department let his house burn down. Here is the news report.

You can see that this incident is being used to attack libertarianism.

National Review’s Daniel Foster jumps in to say that this is why conservatives need to curb their enthusiasm for the market economy. A colleague in the “anarcho-capitalist” camp stuck his head into Daniel’s office to explain that fire protection is not a human right, so it makes sense that the house was allowed to burn. Paul Krugman (he never goes away) adds that this is a case against the market in general. “Do you want to live in the kind of society in which this happens?”

I don’t get this debate at all. It is not even a real debate. The fire-protection services were government services. The fee in question was a government-mandated fee. The county lines in which the fee was applicable is a government-drawn line that is completely arbitrary. The policy of not putting out the fire was a government policy enforced by the mayor. As he said, in the words of a good bureaucrat, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t.”

So why is the market being criticized here? This was not a real market. Instead, this is precisely what we would expect from government. In a real market, there is no way that a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service. They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that. It is the same as lawn-mowing services or plumbing services or any other type of service. Can we know for sure that the market would provide such services? Well, if insurance companies have anything to say about it, such services would certainly be everywhere.

As it was, the fire burned down as a result of government policy, a refusal of service because the homeowners did not pay what amounted to a tax! The poor homeowner begged for help and offered to pay. He had paid the year before and the year before, so his credit was good. Even so, the bureaucracy refused! (The whole thing reminds me of a scene from Gangs of New York.)

A market doesn’t just mean fee-for-service. The government cannot mimic the marketplace by merely setting prices on its services. A free market means that producers are responsible to consumers in a world of private property and free exchange. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Robert Murphy gets it. So does David Henderson. Salon, meanwhile, writes up the news with a picture of Hayek next to a burning house.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It appears I was mistaken.

I thought it entirely odd that a private fire department would not have put out the fire if the man offered to pay, but I respect that it is there right to refuse service to anyone they wish.

It turns out the entire fiasco is due to government.

Of course it's a GOVERNMENT fire station that messed this whole thing up, but they were practicing a fee-based service that is characteristic of PRIVATE services and NOT public. The whole point is that their system is a move towards a privatized system rather than a public one... in a public system EVERYONE is guaranteed fire services regardless of how much money they have. It's called a community, which is more important to humanity than a market.

Mises Institute's Jefferey Tucker explains:

A strange argument emerged overnight that illustrates how little even informed people understand about the market economy and its implications. This time the debate centers on a interesting case of a man in rural Tennessee who did not pay his fire-services fee, so the fire department let his house burn down. Here is the news report.

You can see that this incident is being used to attack libertarianism.
((VIDEO))
National Review’s Daniel Foster jumps in to say that this is why conservatives need to curb their enthusiasm for the market economy. A colleague in the “anarcho-capitalist” camp stuck his head into Daniel’s office to explain that fire protection is not a human right, so it makes sense that the house was allowed to burn. Paul Krugman (he never goes away) adds that this is a case against the market in general. “Do you want to live in the kind of society in which this happens?”

Krugman makes a good point. And having different forms of protection in your community actually typically IS a human right throughout history. A "revolution" that moves AWAY from localized human community and community protection is absolutely NOT a society I want to live in, nor would the vast majority of people.

I don’t get this debate at all. It is not even a real debate. The fire-protection services were government services. The fee in question was a government-mandated fee. The county lines in which the fee was applicable is a government-drawn line that is completely arbitrary. The policy of not putting out the fire was a government policy enforced by the mayor. As he said, in the words of a good bureaucrat, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t.”

So arbitrary rules, lines, fees, and bureaucracy are ONLY characteristic of government and somehow not of private entities? That's one of the most glaring fallacies of free market utopianism. You would see MORE of these kinds of situations if we had privatized social services that weren't regulated by the government or provided communally. Not to mention, the kind of fine print (i.e. rules/lines/fees) that causes this sort of fiasco would be (and is) endemic to unregulated markets.

So why is the market being criticized here? This was not a real market. Instead, this is precisely what we would expect from government. In a real market, there is no way that a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service. They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that. It is the same as lawn-mowing services or plumbing services or any other type of service. Can we know for sure that the market would provide such services? Well, if insurance companies have anything to say about it, such services would certainly be everywhere.

The ideal of the free market via privatization of everything is what's being criticized, and for good reason. As I stated previously- this sort of thing, regardless of being the policy of a government/public fire service is a fair/low-fat example of fully privatized public services. This is NOT the kind of thing we'd expect from government because the VAST VAST MAJORITY of government fire stations have never demonstrated this kind of fee-based negligence. This is a special case that more accurately reflects private fire services than public. In the "real" market there's no way a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service??? Is he kidding...? People are denied services (even crucial ones) in the "real" (i.e. unregulated) market ALL THE TIME. Just look at health-care, that alone proves the point.

As it was, the fire burned down as a result of government policy, a refusal of service because the homeowners did not pay what amounted to a tax! The poor homeowner begged for help and offered to pay. He had paid the year before and the year before, so his credit was good. Even so, the bureaucracy refused! (The whole thing reminds me of a scene from Gangs of New York.)

Though this incident is terrible and reflects badly on the local government, it's still NOT restricted to the public arena and in fact is quite UNcharacteristic of public services. The whole notion of services being PUBLIC is that EVERYONE is guaranteed the services via taxes. If a tax/service is reasonable enough for a community (which fire services unquestionably are), then it's a real no-brainer to implement.

A market doesn’t just mean fee-for-service. The government cannot mimic the marketplace by merely setting prices on its services. A free market means that producers are responsible to consumers in a world of private property and free exchange. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Robert Murphy gets it. So does David Henderson. Salon, meanwhile, writes up the news with a picture of Hayek next to a burning house.

A free market means that producers are responsible to consumers only so far as it impacts their profits, if it is profitable to screw people over they will do it, if it is profitable to cater to consumer demands then they will do that. With something as crucial as fire services (or even health care) I'd prefer not to leave it to the market to figure out and control according to profit-motive and the subsequent games involved which, many times, do screw people over one way or another (i.e. always a catch).