Thread: Is this a good thread to start the Pit?

They didn't risk the entire neighborhood, when the fire threatened the neighbor that had paid the $75, they came and put that fire out.

Originally Posted by Khestra the Unbeheld

That's some twisted s**t. They would rather risk an entire neighborhood being consumed in a conflagration than put out one fire over a $75 tab? I'd go on an arson spree even Godzilla would be proud of, starting with every fire station in the county. I understand the concept of an area of responsibility, but do they understand the concept of reckless endangerment?

I really don't think how one views this is a good test of how Libertarian They Are.

Originally Posted by Psyberwolfe

I really don't think how one views this is a good test of how Libertarian They Are.

Why not? Libertarianism is about being able to maked choices and being responsible for the consequences of your choices.

The Cranicks were given a choice by the county: Pay $75 bucks and get fire protection or save yourselves the cash and live without that protection. Cedar Park doesn't give me that choice; they just bill me. They chose to forego that protection. Until the burn barrell got ****ed up. THEN they wanted that coverage.


Khestra makes an argument on community welfare grounds; the fire department had a responsibility to put out the fire because otherwise it could have endangered the other houses. At that point, a further argument could be made that the Cranicks should have been compelled to pay the $75.00 to begin with (again, that is what Cedar Park does) for the good of the community. Because if the fire department has to respond regardless of whether the homeowner had paid the fee, then no one will pay the fee and the fire department ends out of business.

And that starts the first hesitant step on the long but slippery slope towards socialism....

I know CP bills the citizens for fire protection, but like all other fire departments in the state, CP also gets state funds as well.

IF this had happened in CP, and the firefighters stood and watched a home burn, the homeowner would have a damned good lawsuit against the city based on state funds going to the fire department.

Now, speaking as a former paramedic, and working closely with fire departments (in some cases being part of the fire department), those firefighters should be ashamed of themselves for standing around watching that house burn. They are firefighters, that's what they do...bill the homeowners later for the full amount of putting that fire out, but you put that damned fire out. Anyone who has ever seen a fire go out of control knows that at that point, it is nasty hard to put that blaze out.

Years ago, in Houston, working as a paramedic for HFD, the city ordered a control burn on a busted up meth/crack house. Normal spring day, not a whole lot of wind, picnic day. SOMEHOW the fire spread to the next house...and the next house. Three other houses burned because the "control burn" got out of control. Fire spreads faster than a $2 Rundberg hooker.


Put the fire out and bill 100% to the homeowner.



Here is a real kicker I just thought of...what if someone was in that house and couldn't get out? Would the city have refused the fire service to go in and get the person because of a $75 bill?