House burns to the ground, fire department watches - blame Capitalism?

[William Wallace]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate

Just about anything can be fodder for an ideological dispute these days. Just consider news of the recent fire at Gene Cranick's home in Obion County, Tenn. Here's the short version of what happened: In rural Obion County, homeowners must pay $75 annually for fire protection services from the nearby city of South Fulton. If they don't pay the fee and their home catches fire, tough luck -- even if firefighters are positioned just outside the home with hoses at the ready.
Gene Cranick found this out the hard way. When Cranick's house caught fire last week, and he couldn't contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the Fire Department's defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.

They did, however, come out when Cranick's neighbor -- who'd already paid the fee -- called 911 because he worried that the fire might spread to his property. Once they arrived, members of the South Fulton department stood by and watched Cranick's home burn; they sprang into action only when the fire reached the neighbor's property. "I hadn't paid my $75 and that's what they want, $75, and they don't care how much it burned down," Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

"What moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?" Foster wrote.

But Foster's colleague Kevin Williamson took the opposite view. Cranick's fellow residents in the rural stretches of Obion County had no fire protection until the county established the $75 fee in 1990. As Williamson explained: "The South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton's firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives."
Liberals are pouncing on the Cranick fire as an illustration of what they take to be the callous indifference of a market regime that rewards privileged interests over the concerns of ordinary Americans.

"The case perfectly demonstrated conservative ideology, which is based around the idea of the on-your-own society and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well-off and privileged," Think Progress' Zaid Jilani wrote in a response to the National Review writers. "It has been 28 years since conservative historian Doug Wead first coined the term 'compassionate conservative.' It now appears that if any such philosophy ever existed, it has few adherents in the modern conservative movement."

Local government fails to provide a service because someone lives outside a arbitrarily defined county line, and capitalism is to blame? How?

[orcus116]

I agree with this situation based on the principle but on a human level I can't. The second the guy agrees to pay is when they should take action or put out the fire and sue the guy later. My friend and I were talking about this and he said it's hard to grasp this concept unless you're familiar with how rural America works in terms of emergency fees in lieu of paying for them out of your taxes.

[soundgarden]

Ok, WW, i agree that relationis a big  


And seriously this:

3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?" Foster wrote.

huh? which human would think of compensation when they see another one's home in flames?  This world ...  

[orcus116]

Fire departments aren't free, yo. If the family doesn't want to pay, fuck'em. If they do want to pay (as the guy did albeit at the last second), you put that fire out.

[rumborak]

I think this is why most cities in this world pay firefighters through the city's budget.

If the family doesn't want to pay, fuck'em. If they do want to pay (as the guy did albeit at the last second), you put that fire out.

Well, the family's motivation in that case makes it easy to condemn them. What if the family is hard-pressed to pay the $75? Then the morals aren't as clear-cut anymore.
"Oh, you can't pay us? Lol, then we'll watch your last remaining piece of equity go down."

rumborak

[Chino]

I wonder if they heard a voice screaming for help inside if they would have taken action. If someone does not pay the fee and needs assistance, assistance should be given. Get more money out of them after the fact.

[El Barto]

I agree with this situation based on the principle but on a human level I can't. The second the guy agrees to pay is when they should take action or put out the fire and sue the guy later.

I disagree on both parts.  The principle is bullshit.  Paying for fire protection should be compulsory.  It shouldn't be left to the individual to decide if he wants it or not, since it effects the community as a whole.  If fire departments start trying to only put out certain fires for people that ponied up, then you're going to have big troubles.  Fire protection needs to be provided by the government and paid for by taxes.

On the other hand, if this is the system that they have, the fact the guy wanted to pay once his house caught fire doesn't matter.  He had chosen to forgo their services for however many years before, so they were right to not provide any.  If I don't maintain insurance for 20 years, then have an accident, I can't call up after the fact and expect Allstate to cover me.  Keep in mind that his $75 would barely cover 1 man-hour, much less the entire cost of the operation.  Operational costs of the FD are covered by annual payments from everybody.

As for Braveheart's concern, I think this actually is a reasonable condemnation of the everymanforhimself mentality that capitalism can often foster.  However, since we all agree that emergency services are something the government should certainly be involved it, even the Libertarians,  there's not really much point for discussion.

[rumborak]

This is somewhat in the same vein as epicview's idea of that insurances should work like HSAs. Nope, you can't have people calling in when their house is burning and then paying $75. Because everybody would do that, i.e. wait until their house burns down.
What disturbs me is when people think something that obviously flawed could work. Or they somehow think they're the only smart one around who will then trick the system.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I disagree on both parts.  The principle is bullshit.  Paying for fire protection should be compulsory.  It shouldn't be left to the individual to decide if he wants it or not, since it effects the community as a whole.  If fire departments start trying to only put out certain fires for people that ponied up, then you're going to have big troubles.  Fire protection needs to be provided by the government and paid for by taxes.

...because people are too stupid to manage their own affairs. Just say it, please.

As for Braveheart's concern, I think this actually is a reasonable condemnation of the everymanforhimself mentality that capitalism can often foster.

No. If you're going to criticize the evils of capitalism, make sure you actually have capitalism first. A fire fighting service provided by a local government has nothing to do with the much derided free market. 

[El Barto]

I disagree on both parts.  The principle is bullshit.  Paying for fire protection should be compulsory.  It shouldn't be left to the individual to decide if he wants it or not, since it effects the community as a whole.  If fire departments start trying to only put out certain fires for people that ponied up, then you're going to have big troubles.  Fire protection needs to be provided by the government and paid for by taxes.

...because people are too stupid to manage their own affairs. Just say it, please.

Nope.  It's actually greed, not stupidity.  Another of those pesky qualities that Libertarians never seem to account for.  If one person is allowed to not pay, and many won't, then you screw up the entire system.  The problem with the FD letting that one guy's house burn down is that it's bad practice for a fire department.  Sudden wind comes along and the fire spreads while they're standing around?  Guy didn't realize that his wife came home early and went to bed because she wasn't feeling well?  Clerical snafu regarding who paid their dues?  There are all kinds of reasons why fires need to be put out and allowing people to opt out isn't a viable option. 

And I didn't say that it was capitalism.  I said it was an example of a mentality that is also shared with capitalism.  However, there's a service that's offered to people who pay, and denied to people who don't.  People can decide whether or not to opt in.  How is this not capitalism?

[XJDenton]

Whatever the reason, I think the fire brigade were still a bunch of [insert expletives here] for not intervening.

[GuineaPig]

No. If you're going to criticize the evils of capitalism, make sure you actually have capitalism first. A fire fighting service provided by a local government has nothing to do with the much derided free market. 

Except that a private company would've done the exact same thing.  Besides, this situation more or less happens every time someone without health insurance gets hurt.  That's OK though, it's the free market. 

[William Wallace]

I disagree on both parts.  The principle is bullshit.  Paying for fire protection should be compulsory.  It shouldn't be left to the individual to decide if he wants it or not, since it effects the community as a whole.  If fire departments start trying to only put out certain fires for people that ponied up, then you're going to have big troubles.  Fire protection needs to be provided by the government and paid for by taxes.

...because people are too stupid to manage their own affairs. Just say it, please.

Nope.  It's actually greed, not stupidity.  Another of those pesky qualities that Libertarians never seem to account for.  If one person is allowed to not pay, and many won't, then you screw up the entire system.  The problem with the FD letting that one guy's house burn down is that it's bad practice for a fire department.  Sudden wind comes along and the fire spreads while they're standing around?  Guy didn't realize that his wife came home early and went to bed because she wasn't feeling well?  Clerical snafu regarding who paid their dues?  There are all kinds of reasons why fires need to be put out and allowing people to opt out isn't a viable option.

My misunderstanding, sorry. But greed doesn't prohibit a privatized system from working. The service could be tied to home insurance, for example. And you can bet that if that's the case privatized fire fighting would be widely available in order to reduce the amount of the insurance claims. I thinks it's also more likely that a for profit company, upon receiving a call that some dude's house is on fire and he's willing to pay, would have few qualms about putting out the blaze. Point being, the absence of a publicly funded bureaucracy doesn't preclude an organized service from sprouting up. I'm not on a crusade to privatize firefighting, mind you. But I also thinks it's incorrect to lay the blame for this mess on the fuck everybody else mentality that people wrongly associate with capitalism.

How is this not capitalism?

Because there's more to markets than just buying and selling.

[El Barto]

I think, and I suspect you'd agree, that when it comes to emergency services, any approach that lets people opt out will be a failure.  There are places where I'll agree with you that the market should be allowed to do it's thing, and I suspect you'd agree that there are a few instances where the government should play an active part. This one is definitely the latter.

And as I've thought about it, the fire department is already paid for.  Putting out a fire doesn't really cost much more than sitting at the station watching Dancing with Dipshits.  Driving to the fire was a big part of their expense.  Once they got their and did nothing, they were acting mainly out of spite.  Now, if there were high risk involved in that particular structure, then that's one thing, but breaking a few windows, punching a hole in the roof and pumping water or foam into it really wouldn't have been such a big deal.   

[Odysseus]

The funding should come from everyone's taxes, no exceptions.   Problem solved.  That's how it works over here...

[William Wallace]

The funding should come from everyone's taxes, no exceptions.   Problem solved.  That's how it works over here...

Maybe. But the fact that you're not even open to discussion rubs me the wrong way.

[orcus116]

My friend was telling me the problem with the taxes method is that in the rural areas of America where this happened houses and property are so far spread that it's near impossible to keep track of who is in which town/county/zone/whatever. They opt for using these fees instead because I get the impression with that problem it's far to easy for a town/county fire department to go "well it's not in my district so it's not my problem".

[yeshaberto]

other than the obvious human factor of the principle being overruled in this case by the fact....this is a tough one.  if they give in to the guy, then why would anyone pay.  if I could just pay insurance when I need it, who would buy it. 

[El Barto]

From what I read yesterday, the woman claims that they always pay it every year (though sometimes late), but didn't this year as an oversight.  If this is the case, it starts to bother me a bit more.  When it's a mater of being hardassed to maintain the principle, then I can understand that.  If it's a matter of being hardassed over $75, that's a different story. 

[Orbert]

other than the obvious human factor of the principle being overruled in this case by the fact....this is a tough one.  if they give in to the guy, then why would anyone pay.  if I could just pay insurance when I need it, who would buy it.  

It is indeed just like insurance.  The insurance companies make money by charging everybody enough to cover the relatively few payouts.  $75 won't cover the cost of one call, but $75 from everyone in the coverage area will cover the handful of times someone needs it.

That's why my position (which is very unpopular with people I've talked to) is pretty simple.  They didn't pay the fee, they didn't get the service.  That's how it works way the hell out in the country where there's no local fire station nearby.

El Barto's last post does give it a different spin, but since nothing can really be proved (was it truly an oversight, or did they just decide not to pay this year in order to cut costs and take their chances?) we don't have much recourse.  They still didn't pay.

[hefdaddy42]

My friend was telling me the problem with the taxes method is that in the rural areas of America where this happened houses and property are so far spread that it's near impossible to keep track of who is in which town/county/zone/whatever.

I live in a rural area of America and live near even more rural areas, and this simply isn't true.  Maybe in Montana, where people live in the wilderness, but not in normal rural America.

[Odysseus]

The funding should come from everyone's taxes, no exceptions.   Problem solved.  That's how it works over here...

Maybe. But the fact that you're not even open to discussion rubs me the wrong way.

Who said I'm not up for discussion?  That system does work in that none of the issues surrounding this case arise when it's all paid for up front.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that, so if you would avoid jumping to conclusions so quickly, I would be grateful. Cheers. 

[Orbert]

The problem with "everyone must pay up front" is that, well, everyone must pay, whether or not they will ever need the service, whether or not they even want it, and regardless of their risk.  The guy who lives in a million-dollar mansion has a lot more to lose and will almost certainly pay to protect it, but he also has the $75 a year, and drops that much on lunch every day.  The guy in the mobile home in the middle of field miles from nowhere has much less to lose and the $75 might be two week's worth of groceries to him.  Why should he be forced to pay if he doesn't want the service?

The outrage in the media seems to focus on one of two things: 1) the pets that died, and 2) that the house was a total loss because the $75 fee was not paid.  What if they interviewed the homeowner and he said "Yeah, things were a little tight this year, so I didn't pay the $75.  I'd paid it every year for 20 years and never needed it.  Figures the one time I don't pay, my house would burn down, but I admit it's my own damned fault."?

[El Barto]

Well, that pretty much is what they're saying.  The homeowners have accepted responsibility for it all along. 

I was unaware of the 3 dogs + cat.  That also makes a difference, IMO. 

A big part of my problem with this is that I always figured firefighters to be some of the more altruistic people around.  Unlike cops, I think firefighters are what they are because they genuinely want to help.  It's kind of disheartening to see otherwise.  Other departments who have chimed in on this situation say that they'd have put the fire out and then dealt with the money side later.

  McClanahan, chief of the Blount County ire Department, said a fire fighter is trained to take care of and rescue people, and “He can’t stand by and not try to react to a fire or a rescue.”  Steve Wheeler, chief of Vonore, Tennessee Fire Department, said “We don’t particularly care who’s paid his dues.  If somebody needs help, we help and worry about everything else later.”

This is kind of the attitude that I expect from people who chose this profession.  If I worked for that department, I would already be employed elsewhere by now. 

[Vivace]

This whole thing just amazes me. For $75 we will make them pay with their house, possessions and with their pets. How cold do you have to be to let something like this happen? If this doesn't get the attention it deserves then holy shit does that make me fearful of what's to come in the future.

[Orbert]

Yeah, I've seen people who are pretty mad at the firefighters who went to the scene but did not save the house.  When the news first broke, we didn't have all the details, and I'll admit that I basically stopped following it because there were no more details coming out for another day or two, just lots of lots of controversy.  But I'm assuming it was something like this:

- The system they have in that area, right or wrong, is that people in the city pay taxes and thus will get fire service.  Those outside the city limits don't pay the taxes that pay for the fire department and thus pay a fee every year for service, should it be needed.  (Actually this one's a fact, except maybe for the word "city").

- A call comes in, a house is on fire.  Firefighters mobilize.  At this point, they can tell by the address if they're inside or outside the city line, but don't know if they've paid.  The first priority is to get things rolling.

- Meanwhile, the dispatcher checks and sees that this house didn't pay their fee this year.  This information is relayed to the fire chief.

- The firefighters arrive.  It's a mobile home in a field, and everyone is standing around outside.  Speculation: if anybody was inside, they would have saved them. Seriously, no trained firefighter would stand there and let someone die over $75  But everyone is safe, and a quick discussion confirms that these people didn't pay for fire service this year.

- The cats and dogs are inside, but a decision is made not to risk the life of a firefighter to rescue a pet.

- The fire spreads to the property next door.  Those people paid the fee, and the firefighters put out the fire next door.

- The media gets ahold of this and people everywhere start screaming.

[Orbert]

This whole thing just amazes me. For $75 we will make them pay with their house, possessions and with their pets. How cold do you have to be to let something like this happen? If this doesn't get the attention it deserves then holy shit does that make me fearful of what's to come in the future.

A homeowner in this situation has at least two options to cover his house.  He could have insurance to cover his house in case of fire, and he can pay the annual fee for fire service.  Or both.  Apparently he chose do to neither.  Once his house is on fire, of course he's willing to pay the $75, but it doesn't work like that.  The fire deparment cannot possibly operate if they put the fires out first, then tried to collect $75 each time, which doesn't even begin to cover the cost of their response.

[Odysseus]

The problem with "everyone must pay up front" is that, well, everyone must pay, whether or not they will ever need the service, whether or not they even want it, and regardless of their risk.  The guy who lives in a million-dollar mansion has a lot more to lose and will almost certainly pay to protect it, but he also has the $75 a year, and drops that much on lunch every day.  The guy in the mobile home in the middle of field miles from nowhere has much less to lose and the $75 might be two week's worth of groceries to him.  Why should he be forced to pay if he doesn't want the service?

Yep, understood - there is that, but over here the firefighters turn up whoever or wherever you are, regardless of whether you are employed or unemployed.  If the money is taken in taxation, then $75 a year really isn't that much to pay to protect your property, and also to give everyone peace of mind - it's one less thing to think about.  Personally, I value that. It helps that it's never really been an issue over here - because it has always been included in taxation then people don't really notice it.  I haven't heard of anyone wanting to opt out.
Admittedly, like you say, if someone who is short of cash has to find $75 in one go, then yes that could be hard for them. Is it an organisational issue, perhaps?  Just over 20 cents a day to protect your place?.... Hmmm....

[yeshaberto]

This whole thing just amazes me. For $75 we will make them pay with their house, possessions and with their pets. How cold do you have to be to let something like this happen? If this doesn't get the attention it deserves then holy shit does that make me fearful of what's to come in the future.

A homeowner in this situation has at least two options to cover his house.  He could have insurance to cover his house in case of fire, and he can pay the annual fee for fire service.  Or both.  Apparently he chose do to neither.  Once his house is on fire, of course he's willing to pay the $75, but it doesn't work like that.  The fire deparment cannot possibly operate if they put the fires out first, then tried to collect $75 each time, which doesn't even begin to cover the cost of their response.

and as the article noted, prior to the fee no services were available. 
the sad reality is that we live in a me-society.  if I don't get my way, I can yell loud enough till someone gives in.  it works.  except in this case.

[Vivace]

This whole thing just amazes me. For $75 we will make them pay with their house, possessions and with their pets. How cold do you have to be to let something like this happen? If this doesn't get the attention it deserves then holy shit does that make me fearful of what's to come in the future.

A homeowner in this situation has at least two options to cover his house.  He could have insurance to cover his house in case of fire, and he can pay the annual fee for fire service.  Or both.  Apparently he chose do to neither.  Once his house is on fire, of course he's willing to pay the $75, but it doesn't work like that.  The fire deparment cannot possibly operate if they put the fires out first, then tried to collect $75 each time, which doesn't even begin to cover the cost of their response.

If I were to use this argument then If I was being robbed but didn't pay a fee or my taxes, if I yell for help the police officer has every right to just stand there and let me be robbed. Sorry... but if that's the kind of world we live in that's pretty horrific.

[Orbert]

Why do you keep saying things like "that make me fearful of what's to come" and "if that's the kind of world we live in"?  It's not even close to the same thing, and I've explained why.  You're either ignoring my explanation because it doesn't fit your idealistic views, or lack the reading comprehension to digest it fully.

Yes, this is the world we live in.  It has rules, and if you don't follow them, do not expect things to always go your way.  People get away with not following the rules all the time, and sometimes they even sue someone and get a boatload of money even though they were wrong in the first place.  This guy did did not follow the rules, and bet his house that people would just save it anyway.  He was wrong.

You can say "But the world should not be like this" all you want. That doesn't change it.  Learn the rules, follow them, things will be better.  There are no guarantees, but when someone tells you exactly how things work and you choose to try and get away with someone else, but still expect others to pay for it, you're the one who's wrong.  Not "the world."

[73109]

Shit man. I would have just put the fire out and taken the guy to court or something later. I mean, if they really have been paying and they just forgot this year (as El Barto) pointed out, then the fire depo. are just being complete and utter asses because some dude didn't pay the cash. I understand it is somewhat of a different story if it was a matter of principle but, it seems it isn't. Also, like El Barto said, Fire Fighters tend to actually want to help. Cops are asses. Yes, I just made that generalization, but whatever. Figher Fighters seem like they want to help people and this is just sad. The fact that they even some of the fire out once it got to the other dudes house just makes this even more sickening. Fuck.

[Vivace]

Why do you keep saying things like "that make me fearful of what's to come" and "if that's the kind of world we live in"?  It's not even close to the same thing, and I've explained why.  You're either ignoring my explanation because it doesn't fit your idealistic views, or lack the reading comprehension to digest it fully.

Yes, this is the world we live in.  It has rules, and if you don't follow them, do not expect things to always go your way.  People get away with not following the rules all the time, and sometimes they even sue someone and get a boatload of money even though they were wrong in the first place.  This guy did did not follow the rules, and bet his house that people would just save it anyway.  He was wrong.

You can say "But the world should not be like this" all you want. That doesn't change it.  Learn the rules, follow them, things will be better.  There are no guarantees, but when someone tells you exactly how things work and you choose to try and get away with someone else, but still expect others to pay for it, you're the one who's wrong.  Not "the world."

Please. no reason to put me in my place. I understand you perfectly. Not a good first impression, dude.