The town requires an annual firefighting fee of $75 which homeowner didn't pay. His home caught on fire he told dispatcher he would pay the fee but the fire department refused to put the fire out. The fire department was correct but was it correct?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/opinion/07thu4.html?th=&emc=th
This is classic. I've heard critics of libertarianism say on numerous occasions that we *have* to have government fire departments, because a private firefighting company might just let your house burn if you weren't one of their customers. It's pretty much the standard objection to privatizing fire protection. Thanks for passing along the article, Ron.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Moreover, as Jacob Hornberger points out, a private company would very
likely have put the fire out: www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-10-06.asp.
I grew up in Alexandria VA and on the front of the house was a faux antique fire Co. plaque that identified the private fire company that would respond to a fire at that house. There were several such companies. They had some kind of mutual agreement in case the wrong one responded to a fire but that didn't always work, eventually various snafus led to the city/county taking it over.
Glad to see that publicization has not solved that problem. *giggle*
Aloha, B.
The officials of South Fulton must have known this would happen eventually. One
news account said the voluntary $75 has been policy for 20 years. Another story
said the owners actually had some fire insurance. You have to wonder why South
Fulton hadn't tell every insurance company to pay up. Or why they didn't just
put out the fire and send a bill for expenses? Ambulances regularly pick up
unconscious patients and collect from them or their insurers post facto.
Perhaps even a local gov't in TN has zero confidence in their court system.
Harland Harrison
LP of San Mateo County CA
----- Message ----
The town requires an annual firefighting fee of $75 which homeowner didn't pay.
His home caught on fire he told dispatcher he would pay the fee but the fire
department refused to put the fire out. The fire department was correct but was
it correct?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/opinion/07thu4.html?th=&emc=th
Thanks for posting Hornberger's article. I've heard so-called 'progressives' all over talk-radio spouting this same party-line about 'libertarianism run amok!' What the whole house-burning episode provides, if anything, that the government is nothing but a protection racket. What's just as interesting the fake-libertarian/ neocon commentators are defending the fire department---on the grounds that the homeowner broke the law, of course, and deserved to punished in some way.
Some of these 'progressives' destroy their own case by pointing out that fire departments were once privately-owned in America. The Insurance Companies generally funded them. Wouldn't a system like that make sense today? You buy fire insurance for your property and fire service is automatically a part of the insurance package?
They make the same spurious arguments about welfare. When welfare was privately administered, people were actually helped---compared to today with a professional class of bums terrorizing the streets and soaking up resources.
Hi Eric,
I would bet that 90% of the general public would not be aware that once fire departments were private. I keep thinking we need to start and publicize some kind of blog that talks about the old days when private services worked just fine, and we all were free to pay for them or not.
However, I fear that the progressives have obliterated our collective memories for good. Case in point -- I recently attended a meeting of the Police Commission, in which the privately-remunerated Patrol Special Police was discussed. One Commissioner intimated that such entities are not proper, since only those that pay for them can enjoy the benefits of their service. To be fair to the Commissioner, I understood her train of thought, given the quasi private/government nature of the Patrols. But, folks, really, not good because only those that choose to pay for the service enjoy the service? My mind was left reeling.
Anybody any ideas about a blog, or Facebook group dedicated to old-time private stuff that worked just fine?
Marcy
Hi Marcy;
The Progressives are notorious for not connecting dots logically. In fact, if you included a government mandate (i.e., gov't mandating insurance companies pay for for fire service), it wouldn't be essentially different than the Obamacare they all wanted! The quote from Hornberger reminded me of a saying of his, that Progressives believe in the inherent goodness of government. Again, they never connect the dots; they want government protection from predatory corporations by monopolizing all the power in a corporate entity.
Part of the problem is that the Gingrichites and the rest of the neocons have so hijacked the term 'privatization' (when what they really mean is corporate statism), that people are wary of moving public services into the private sector.
I think a similar idea to fire service might work for some aspects of policing. Since most property crimes are committed against insured property, why not have the insurance companies investigate property loss? In both instances, fire and police, the government could simply be relegated to enforcement/regulatory capacities (making sure that the insurance companies are adequately doing the job and not cheating on claims).
Hi Eric,
I am ambivalent whether progressives are incapable of connecting the dots. Progressives at the top of the heap, regardless of Gingrichite prodding, have made sure that when folks think of private entities, they think of BP, Walmart, or Lehman; when folks think of government non-intervention they think of Katrina; when folks think of foreign policy they think of 9/11. Perhaps it is the brainwashed at the bottom of the heap who fail to note the disconnect.
So, it would seem to me that we L(l)ibertarians need to interact more with the brainwashed in an effort to bring some light into the mess we are all in.
Marcy
Marcy:
You're full of good ideas, and unbelievable energy! I think this idea
has some nice potential; I think also of points that could be made about
education. It was before the modern public education movement, for
example, when John Wilkes Booth leapt onto the stage of the Ford Theater
and shouted, "Sic semper tyrannis!" He surely expected his audience to
understand him; today he would simply be assumed to be a foreigner, and
probably attacked as a terrorist.
But there is also a potential liability. Libertarians have been
dismissed for 50 years (maybe since 1901 :-)) for wanting "to turn the
clock back to the 19th century." I suspect this response would need to
be addressed head-on.
Hi Mike,
I understand your advice for caution on Libertarians often being seen as wanting to turn back the clock!! Yes, that would need to be considered when we speak about the good old pioneer-spirit days.
LPSF has discussed the idea of having some kind of on-line dialogue about the old days for a while. The idea was first proposed by Starchild. I love that idea, and will poke around the Internet this week end for ideas.
Regards,
Marcy
Hi Marcy,
Those are good points; although progressives also miss the fact that the biggest corporation in world history was the Soviet Union; whose form of government they most seem to want to emulate.
But the Gingrichites aren't helping matters either; they're statists too, but they do more damage because their propaganda counterfeits libertarian principles; so that when trying to educate low-information voters, it's often a matter of unraveling the tissue of neocon lies first. They have an advantage over progressives too, because of their vise-like grip on the mass media.