By The Right Scoop


Hotair has the story and theblaze has the video, but the bottom line is this: You don’t pay the $75 fee every year, and firefighters won’t respond if your house is on fire. And that’s what happened:

Glenn’s take on this is that he agrees with the decision that the city made to let the house burn down. And to a point I understand the policy. But really, isn’t there a better way to make this point than actually letting the man’s house burn down? This was my first reaction, and still is to some degree. But as I was writing this, I learned the problem gets more complicated because the man doesn’t live in the city limits and therefore, I assume, the city doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce penalties because the man chose not to pay the fee.

Still yet, it would seem there must be a better way to handle this. Since it appears that city residents pay for this service, perhaps through taxation of some sort, it would seem that the resources would be there to fight the fire. I say respond to the fire, make the county man pay a hefty fee on the spot, maybe $500, and then put the fire out. If he can’t pay the fee, then you’ve given him a second chance and you can let it burn down as long as no one is in the house.

Yeah I know, it’s not a perfect solution. And the end result might be the same. Bottom line is that the county has problems that really need to be worked out.

P.S. If you want to hear someone spin this as “the tea party’s idea of government a la carte”, then watch this.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://community.livejournal.com/black_avenger_1/profile Virus-X

    This is one of the times that I thoroughly and wholeheartedly disagree with Glenn Beck, and I’m in full-throated opposition to his viewpoint. So I wonder what’s going to happen when these bastards stand around on a smoke break while the house is burning down, only to find, later, that there were unreported kids in that house, and they burned to death? Say “oh, well, they should’ve paid their protection money”? Absolute horse sh*t. Wow. If I was an arsonist, I’d love to live in that town.

    • Tyler

      On the contrary…I would think that human lives potentially being at stake is exactly why they were out there. Otherwise…why even bother to show up since they have on record that he didn’t pay the fee? Plus, they may need to be there to make sure the fire doesn’t spread through the forest as was shown could’ve potentially happened in this case or if there’s another house next to him that did pay the fee, they could offer fire protection for those people while still explaining it.

      I also agree with Scoop’s solution that if the man is willing to pay perhaps a more hefty fee right on the spot, then they could go ahead and put the fire out so that he can have a choice between either paying the fee in advance or hefty fee when the fire actually happens.

      • Extremely Right

        Why couldn’t they have collected right there on the spot? I’m not sure if I understand why it has to be prepaid. If I call an ambulance in my town, I get a bill.

        • Tyler

          I think that’s what Scoop was getting at with the bottom line of something needs to change in the way the county and/or cities are doing this.

      • http://twitter.com/PunditPundit Jorge Landivar

        The hefty fee would have to be in the thousands of dollars for it to work, as the risk of a house burning down is very small.

    • Tyler

      On the contrary…I would think that human lives potentially being at stake is exactly why they were out there. Otherwise…why even bother to show up since they have on record that he didn’t pay the fee? Plus, they may need to be there to make sure the fire doesn’t spread through the forest as was shown could’ve potentially happened in this case or if there’s another house next to him that did pay the fee, they could offer fire protection for those people while still explaining it.

      I also agree with Scoop’s solution that if the man is willing to pay perhaps a more hefty fee right on the spot, then they could go ahead and put the fire out so that he can have a choice between either paying the fee in advance or hefty fee when the fire actually happens.

  • Martygibson

    I have this point to make. What is the purpose of county, city, and property taxes? Are they not suppose to be applied to these services. To charge an additional $75.00 fee for services that should be covered by taxes already impose on the citizenry is absurd. It is another example of the governments inability to use tax monies to provide for appropriate services. Fire Departments are paid for through taxes. You have already paid for the service without additional fees. By the way, a fee is a tax. They’re both three letter words.

    • HeartlandLady

      My first question was also, “What about the taxes they pay?” And then I heard that rural families in that area have to pay extra for any fire dept. services at all. I also live in a rural area and continuously find myself having to pay more for property taxes, home-owner’s insurance, etc on top of the normal taxes that folks who live in neighborhoods pay. I find myself torn on this topic. His explanation was intriguing, but I’m not sure I agree either.

      • Tyler

        Since the folks don’t live in the city itself, they may not be paying those taxes. If they are, then the other possible explanation is that it requires more resources for the emergency services to get out to your house, so unless you would prefer for everyone else to pay more taxes to cover you…there’s your possible answer. As I replied to Virus, I agree with Scoop that the man being given the options took his chances. The only thing I don’t like is that when the man offered to pay “whatever it took,” they still wouldn’t do it (or as the old lady said, probably couldn’t do what they felt was right).

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PMLT5XN3DODARW4HIWZCBBS5YA Mickey

          As someone who grew up in Connecticut I find odd that there is things such unincoporated towns.In Ct all cities,towns,villiages belong to a larger city,town etc under a township system where the larger population center is responsible for fire/ploice safety,schools.But if you live in the county and you need to pay a fee for such services I guess you should.Still it is odd that you don’t basic services.All in all is 75 dollars is alot cheaper then a new house.

          • KeninMontana

            Come out west, the numbers of unincorporated towns increase the further west you get. We have more unincorporated towns here than “you can shake a stick at”.

          • Extremely Right

            I live in the “country”. In a township specifically but included in a county. Local taxes support our volunteer fire department. In fact I’m not even located in the township that serves us. Fire and rescue services are same department. Police matters are handled by the county sheriff. It sounds like the local government has really made a mess of things there. A local sales tax should be covering this.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PMLT5XN3DODARW4HIWZCBBS5YA Mickey

          As someone who grew up in Connecticut I find odd that there is things such unincoporated towns.In Ct all cities,towns,villiages belong to a larger city,town etc under a township system where the larger population center is responsible for fire/ploice safety,schools.But if you live in the county and you need to pay a fee for such services I guess you should.Still it is odd that you don’t basic services.All in all is 75 dollars is alot cheaper then a new house.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PMLT5XN3DODARW4HIWZCBBS5YA Mickey

          As someone who grew up in Connecticut I find odd that there is things such unincoporated towns.In Ct all cities,towns,villiages belong to a larger city,town etc under a township system where the larger population center is responsible for fire/ploice safety,schools.But if you live in the county and you need to pay a fee for such services I guess you should.Still it is odd that you don’t basic services.All in all is 75 dollars is alot cheaper then a new house.

      • Tyler

        Since the folks don’t live in the city itself, they may not be paying those taxes. If they are, then the other possible explanation is that it requires more resources for the emergency services to get out to your house, so unless you would prefer for everyone else to pay more taxes to cover you…there’s your possible answer. As I replied to Virus, I agree with Scoop that the man being given the options took his chances. The only thing I don’t like is that when the man offered to pay “whatever it took,” they still wouldn’t do it (or as the old lady said, probably couldn’t do what they felt was right).

    • Anonymous

      Fees are voluntary, taxes are extortion, so thank you, for making the case for a Voluntaryist society for me. I appreciate it.

    • Don17k

      A fee and a tax are two different things, although some use the terms interchangeably. A fee is paid for using a service. A tax is paid whether there is any additional service rendered or not. You pay a fee, for example, to apply for a passport or a drivers license. That’s not a tax. You pay sales tax when you buy clothing, even though that money gets you nothing extra.

      Emergency services within a city are paid for by the city and funded through its taxes. It is the county’s responsibility to serve areas not within a city, and they are supposed to charge taxes to the owners of properties outside the cities. Suppose the fire had been at the home of a renter, and the decision to pay the $75 or not, was up to his landlord, who had chosen not to? Suppose a landlord charges the tenant the fee, but pockets it? The tenant can sue the landlord, sure. But perhaps not collect anything. Any insurance money goes first to the mortgagee, and may not cover the amount of loss. The mortgagee can foreclose and take the land. The tenant ends up losing everything… isn’t it better to prevent or mitigate the loss in the first place?

    • Paulchri

      The purpose of property taxes is to put all property in ownership of government. Other than law enforcement and running the courts, everything should be volunteer. This is a city fire dept, but a house outside the city. If the county residences want a fire dept, they should put together a volunteer dept. like many others do. Otherwise the city is not responsible. So they offer a fee to include people. At least the county resident have a choice in the matter. People in the city pay higher fees regardless.

  • Puma for Life

    think this is horrible and immoral and I completely and totally disagree with Beck on this. I used to live in a community with a volunteer fire department, which is how small communities used to take care of their people. Firemen have an obligation, much like doctors, (in my opinion) to save property and lives. It’s up the firefighters to decide, on the spot, who to save and who to let burn? These firefighters do not deserve to be in these positions. I am sorry, but this is appalling.

    • Tyler

      I think the old lady had it right. They probably weren’t allowed to do anything from what I heard them saying about the city manager telling them they couldn’t or something like that.

      As I also pointed out above, I think the only reason they even bothered showing up since they had on record that he had not paid his fee is to make sure there weren’t people trapped inside or that the fire wouldn’t spread into something monstrous.

  • KenInIL

    I wonder if the guy was “self-insured” too? This comes to the heart of the question of the “nanny” state. Does govt force you to pay these taxes or should they be voluntary. An alternative is to have a non-payer fee for firefighting, like $30,000, and allow the homeowners to gamble. I feel the same way about some of the property tax assessments I pay for like park district and public schools (my kids went to parochial – so I paid twice for schooling)

    • hardheadinTX

      You, sir, have hit the nail on the head. From an administrative/legal point of view, this man elected to be Self Insured. That is, he personally chose to risk his house, and if he lost, he lost everything… See it this way, he chose to “self-insure” his home with a deductible of 100% in the event of a fire. Gambled. Lost. Whoops! — Bottom line, it is your life, manage it as you will; in our society, we are free to make good choices, or dumb ones, but we ARE free to chose. However, as a sage once said, we are the victim of our decisions. I am sorry for him, but hey, it is like driving without collision insurance… you MAY get away with it for your whole lifetime… on the other hand…

    • Paulchri

      I would add that there should be no property taxes at all. Private citizens do not have to control over ownership anymore. Why do people pay way too much for something that a gangster gvnmt can take any time they want, or simply raise the fees so that you have to give it up? If my property were paid off, and I just wanted to be left alone, I do not have that ability. I still have to pay the gangsters or be kicked out. Communities should get together and decide what they want to fund, and those who don’t shouldn’t get the service. Simple as that.

  • Anonymous

    I disagree with beck 100% and also don’t like them making fun of the way the guy talked. I never knew beck was this low down. Making fun of someone that just lost their home is insane. They could have put the fire out then charged the family for the service. If it had been someone living off the government, they would have taken care of the fire. I was a big fan of beck and have every show for past 13 months, but that has changed.

    • TheBug

      I also was offended at the jokes about the guy’s accent. We speak differently throughout our country and I find myself put-off by the libs making personal attacks – what the heck is Glenn’s crew doing making fun of our country’s citizens?? He already lost his house – do they have to pour salt on the wound and make fun of him?!? This topic is certainly a thought-provoking one. My main objection is to the $75 tax that is additional for the rural folks and that it’s optional. If I had the option to pay a tax, I’m tellin ya I wouldn’t pay it either. If it’s posed as $75 insurance and they chose not to purchase it, then the firefighters were not wrong, although I’m sure they were torn up about it. Ick Ick Ick. What the heck do the taxes they pay to the county/city/state go for?!?!

      • Tyler

        That’s just the thing. We don’t have the whole story. Since he lives outside the city limits, he may not pay city taxes…only county and state. If that’s the case, then I see no wrong having been done here other than that they refused to put out the fire even when he offered to pay “whatever it took.”

        • Don17000a

          If there are residential areas within a county not covered by city emergency services, then the county needs to make arrangements for those. If there’s a $75 fee, then the county needs to pay that for each resident outside any city limits, and tack that onto the county taxes for those homes.

          There is NO excuse for this. None whatever!

          • Tyler

            Trust me, Don. I agree fully. That is what Tulsa County does to people here living in rural areas and it works fine for us because everyone else doesn’t have to pay extra to cover them and they don’t have to worry about crap like this.

            As you may have already seen if you scrolled down to read my solution, there’s no reason why an emergency service should ever be voluntary.

  • Angel

    $500?
    Get real would not pay for the cost.

    Perhaps $15,000 would work. I mean it would have to be high enough that no one would consider just not buying coverage because the risk made it make sense. But then could they actually collect it? Most likely not in many cases. Thus the quandary.

    I say they made the right decision as well. If you do not buy insurance for your ATV and get in an accident it is not covered your loss. Same here. No lives were at risk just property.

    Now what I do not understand is why their insurance company did not require they buy the protection.

    The county has chosen not to pay the city for this protection as well. Shame on the county and the insurance companies. Though it is possible the house was not insured at all.

    • Tyler

      Yep. Without the whole story, we really can’t make a proper judgement.

    • Rich

      Shame on the country and the insurance companies? Why? Shame on the man for making a silly decision. The county didn’t make it for him. The insurance company didn’t make it for him.

  • las

    Glenn… give your head a shake man! You’re totally off the mark on this no matter what sophistry you throw at it… And Pat… don’t be such an ass… mocking is what the progressive left do ALL THE TIME… today in this segment you have both beclowned yourselves.

    Let’s follow whatever trickle down theory Glenn was trying to conger up… In truth they are now homeless. Government services will have to be used up relocating them in temporary government run shelters… welfare will be used up as they have to have some income over the “meantime” assuming he is jobless. Precious homeless resources used for new furniture… whatever. The cost in administration to investigate with local authorities the cause of the fire… local council inquiry diverting resources… on and on.

    The fire could have spread much worse owing to the fact that the FD did not show up until the neighbor called and the damage to the neighbor could have been avoided had they answered the call in the first place. Yup, animals died in the fire, could have been a sleeping grandma that the owners may have assumed was out shopping… whatever… it could have been a life taking disaster.

    Glenn… I’m shocked… truly shocked at you callousness. Here is the test of your Christianity to help out during a catastrophe no matter how “in the wrong” for not paying the fee that the owners were.

    The municipal policy that caused some to be covered and others not to be covered will be the first to be reviewed in all probability. This will not be the end of the problem… lawsuits will definitely ensue. And the shame of firefighters standing by, even if they did arrive late on the scene is a disgrace.

    Glenn… I’m your biggest fan… but for the love of all that is decent… give your head a shake.

  • Julia

    I disagreed until I listened to Beck’s argument. He makes sense. If no one is in the house, let it burn. I would have paid the $75. However, I think that the fire department should have accepted the money plus a LATE fee on the spot and then put the fire out.

    • Anonymous

      They should have put the fire out, then gone after the money. Glenn preaches about God all the time, but it doesn’t appear he lives the life.

      • Tyler

        On the contrary, he has a valid point though. The firefighters need that money to stay employed and if they put out the fire of someone who didn’t pay the fee…then why would anyone? Then again…I put out my solution at the bottom and I think that would prevent this type of thing from happening again regardless of your feelings on it.

      • Extremely Right

        He’s a Mormon. They have a couple of “extra” chapters in their bible. Plus Mormons are pedophiles pretty much. Unless your religion thinks it’s okay for 50 year old men to marry 12 year old girls.

        • Anonymous

          Painting with a pretty broad brush there, aren’t you buddy? You sound as prejudiced/bigoted against mormons as Beck is against atheists.

          For future reference, the multiple-marriage pedos are a breakaway fundamentalist sect of mormonism, not the mainline group that Beck and Romney are part of.

          • Extremely Right

            Mormons are creeps. Period

            • Anonymous

              Thank you for proving my point, I take it you were being ironic when you chose your moniker?

  • Ken F Jackson

    Glenn I,m sorry but god does cause things to happen, Lighting ,flooding,fire. WE pay these high taxes state county,local for this type of service why should we pay more on top of that. Let me guess a flood hits nere your home and your family is in danger so is your neighbor your telling me you won,t help them to, I don,t buy it or should I. I thought I know more about you but I guess not. Very ashamed of your feelings on this.I served in the Marines not only did you not leave anyone behind but you also took care of your enemy. I,m proud of that but not you on this one. God have mercy on you for that stand. Pray it,s me when you have a critical problem who will help. Oh you can send the money to the Marine Corps for the Men and Women who gave there live so you could speak on Radio and TV.

    • Anonymous

      He does send his money to the USMC, through the taxes which are taken at gunpoint which also pay for the parts of government he objects to.

  • Rafjo82

    I have to say I disagree with beck. Emergency rooms never decline stab victims or anything of the sort, even if they can’t pay for that emergent care. I would say its the same sort of scenario with a house on fire. True you have to have insurance to protect against that sort of thing, but it is unethical to not save someone who is emergent, and i would say its unethical to not put out a fire just because of policy.

    Perhaps they can formulate some sort of penalty (whether a large fee or something of the like) in the event that something like this happens. But I think its unethical to just stand by and let a fire burn a house to the ground when firemen are standing right there on scene.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s look at Detroit, as the Democrats like to say, “looking forward” or moving forward. This may be a case for National Fire Insurance. Hummmmm

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/fire-s20.shtml

  • Tyler

    I’ve already responded to some comments and having listened to Glenn Beck’s argument…lemme say that I agree that Pat was a jerk and for no real reason on this one. Beck should’ve cut his mic off when he wouldn’t stop.

    Beck’s argument works perfectly fine and is perfectly logical for this situation.

    Now…MY solution? Don’t make it optional. WHY the heck is fire protection an OPTION? It’s an EMERGENCY service. You have to pay taxes on your house every year anyway to the county. If these people don’t live in city limits…just INCLUDE it in there. One of the government’s MAIN jobs is to PROTECT LIFE. If POLICE services aren’t optional and EMS isn’t optional…then WHY is FIREFIGHTING an OPTION?

    This idiot who chose to gamble, lost and now is complaining about it is EXACTLY WHY you DON’T make FIRE PROTECTION an OPTION. There are way too many people who think they are capable of governing themselves and making decisions for themselves who CLEARLY CAN’T.

    That last sentence PAINS me to say as a Libertarian too, but it’s true of MOST Americans…especially of guys like this goober.

    • Anonymous

      First you put out the fire and charge the owner for all costs. Then pass legislation that makes fire protection mandatory. It cost the fire department almost as much to watch the fire as it would have to fight the fire, since they were already there. They would have the same results if they put out the fire, then charged the family for all costs, plus maybe a fine. It would have sent a message to others to pay the75 dollar fee.

      • Tyler

        I suppose we shall see if the citizens decide to maybe push it up to county to automatically tax the guy the fee or if they want to give up more of their hard-earned dough to provide protection for the country freeloaders.

        Sometimes a great wrong has to occur before a rightful change can be made.

    • Kbillar

      And this is where volunteerism comes in to play. Yes, there are goobers who will make the wrong decision. But using force and coercion through mandatory fees, taxes, etc., is ALWAYS wrong. I don’t care how good your intentions are. Why can’t we have local volunteer fire fighters? Why can’t local communities, churches, charities come in and fill in the gap? Why do we keep insisting on using government (force and coercion) to solve our problems?

      • Anonymous

        In many areas there are, according to the USFA
        “86% of fire departments are volunteer or mostly volunteer and protect 39% of the population”
        http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/departments/index.shtm

      • Anonymous

        Amen

      • Tyler

        Some communities are just plain too small to have volunteer fire departments. What then?

      • Tyler

        Some communities are just plain too small to have volunteer fire departments. What then?

      • Tyler

        Some communities are just plain too small to have volunteer fire departments. What then?

    • Anonymous

      So if we make the concession for government to suspend the personal responsibility of this man who chose NOT to take necessary steps against exactly this situation, where does that end?

      • Tyler

        That ends in there being no ridiculous story about a fire department which “wasn’t compassionate” enough. If it’s not automatically placed in there, then this is the kind of crap you’ll find. They even said it on that newscast that this isn’t the only incident. Crap like this is going on all over the place and none of it would be happening if firefighting was considered the same as every other emergency service and just plain mandatory to pay. As I said…the government’s responsibility is to protect life, but of course those who protect it need to be paid for their work. You can talk about volunteer firefighting all day, but some communities are too small to do that even if they wanted to.

        • Anonymous

          The ends justify the means then? Looks like we’re gonna disagree on a few key points at the very crux of the issue.

          If forced into practicality’s sake, I may still be a Minarchist, but every day as I watch this government in D.C. continue I go further in casting it aside and going full-bore Voluntaryist/Agorist.

  • Nevadatex7

    You are all missing the point of this story. This fire is a model for how Obamacare will work. If someone has a negative incentive to enroll, they will simply not pay until something happens and then will pay the same premium we are all paying. Is that fair? The logic is that those who choose to not participate and then want to participate later when they really need it, should pay a premium for accessing at that time. If there is no incentive to pay now, no one will participate until an emergency strikes. Therein lies the problem with Obamacare and other similar programs.

    • Anonymous

      I HATE this argument, Beck tried to us it as well. This is NOT akin to Obamacare. The proper way to handle this, as with anything like this, would be to 1> Put the fire out, 2> Bill the homeowner 3> if the Homeowner does not pay, file a Lien on the property for Services Rendered. The $75 is NOT insurance, it is a user fee, prepaid fire protection. This is more akin to say AAA, if you pay AAA (random number) $150 a year, AAA will start your car, tow your car, unlock your call, etc for free, if you dont pay AAA, then you can still call a Tow Truck and Pay for those services directly. Now one might say “But AAA will not be doing it” True, this is again why government services cant be run as a business, NO COMPETITION, so the homeowner has NO OTHER OPTIONS, there are not 5 or 10 competition fire services in that county, apparently there are none. Never would I claim that the fire dept has an obligation to provide services free, but they should have put the fire out, which they had a legal enforceable recorded verbal contract in the 911 call, billed them at a reasonable rate for the services requested and then used the legal collection systems we have in this nation to collect on the debt. NEVER under any logic should the fire be left to burn once the trucks rolled, If they would have stayed in the station we might be having a whole other argument.

    • tim

      Clearly, you just made that up, as it bears no resemblance to the law as passed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000220027383 Troy La Mana

    Fire and Police services should NEVER be withheld. You can do that all day long with trash service but not when it comes down to the safety of a life.

    • http://twitter.com/PunditPundit Jorge Landivar

      Thats the EXACT same argument used for mandatory health insurance and socialized medicine.

  • jbluv

    Didn’t we paid enough taxes already? fee for this and fee for that? there is no excuse for these firefighters to just watch the house burning, to just watch the people pleading for help. Man is that how MONEY means so much to these people? where are your conscience people? bad enough not to help those people in need, but these supposedly firefighters showed up there and just watch, i’d be ashame! This is unamerican! I agree with the other post, that the firefighters could have taken care of that burning house, and then find the home owner the fee plus penalty. You don’t just watch and let the house burn? My God, you are supposed to help people even to your enemy in need.
    As to Glenn and Pat’s reaction to this, well, we all have different opinions and sometimes, we speak without even thinking the consequences. Glenn I believe has a genuine heart but he does goes by the rules, for me, with fixed income I paid too much taxes already and it keeps going up every year, and $75 fee is just another excuse from our government that can’t get enough from our pocket, and if they can get away with it, they’ll keep adding more dollars to it, in short it’s our UNION do’s. Please, tax enough already!

  • Anonymous

    For better or worse, and in this case an unfortunate loss, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Having grown up in a rural community where in order to have “fire” protection required fees to be paid. This has been around a long time, and is nothing new.

    The man choose not to pay the fees, so he would up really paying with his house. If he would have paid the required fees then he would have had fire “insurance.” I frankly don’t see where the city did anything wrong.

    • Don17K

      Bullying isn’t an uncommon occurrence, either. Does that mean there’s nothing wrong with it?

      • Anonymous

        Your argument is obtuse. This man had the opportunity to pay for the fire department to provide fire protection, and he made the free-will choice NOT to pay the simple $75.00 fee to protect his property. He choice was his and his alone – he was FREE to decide. He decided he didn’t want to pay the $75.00, which was his choice, so the city’s position was justified.

        So, why should the city be responsible to provide services not paid for (and declined by home owner) for a rual, private, residence. Perhaps next time this man will turn loose a little cash to support the city services (that are cash strapped already), and perhaps save his new home that he will have to build.

        You can’t have something for nothing in this world. So why should the citizens of that city have to pay for an individual who refuses of his own free-will choice to pay his fare share.

        • Don17k

          Because an uncontrolled fire is everyone’s enemy. The fire department serves the people. All of them. Doesn’t the city fire department get a subsidy from the county or the state to buy their equipment, build the firestations, pay the workers comp insurance of its employees? Or do you think just city taxes are always enough to cover all that?

          Suppose this man had been only renting, and it was his landlord who had chosen not to pay the $75?

          As I posted above, this is a flawed system that deprives people of emergency services. There are other solutions. He had insurance. Surely, it behooves the insurance company to make sure that the $75 is paid on the homes of all their policyholders in such areas? And to do so the same way a mortgagee makes sure the insurance is up to date, by paying the fee themselves and building it into the premiums/service charges?

          And you think my argument is obtuse?

      • Anonymous

        Your argument is obtuse. This man had the opportunity to pay for the fire department to provide fire protection, and he made the free-will choice NOT to pay the simple $75.00 fee to protect his property. He choice was his and his alone – he was FREE to decide. He decided he didn’t want to pay the $75.00, which was his choice, so the city’s position was justified.

        So, why should the city be responsible to provide services not paid for (and declined by home owner) for a rual, private, residence. Perhaps next time this man will turn loose a little cash to support the city services (that are cash strapped already), and perhaps save his new home that he will have to build.

        You can’t have something for nothing in this world. So why should the citizens of that city have to pay for an individual who refuses of his own free-will choice to pay his fare share.

  • Anonymous

    There are a few things that bother me here1> Beck is alway going on about “Faith, Hope, Charity”. “Be your best self”, “Help each other out”. Then at the first chance he gets to stand on those principles he spits in the face of them. We can discuss the merits of the $75, we can discuss the policies that led to this, we can discuss the alot of things about this case. But once the Firefighters were at the location. Everything changed. Beck calls them Hero’s. I call them cowards. There is no way a HUMAN could stand by an not render some kind of assistance. Money is for the City Managers, the accountants and the City council to worry about. Firefighters FIGHT FIRES. Dont want to do your job, get a new job. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, those who have the ability to help have the responsibility to as well, the money can sort its self out later. 2> This sounds like it is an on going issue, so if it is, the solution is simple a) annex the area in to the city, b) the county should add $75 to the property taxes for those residents in the area. Simple. and no more problems. This is the way is should have been all along IMO. 3> Even to libertarians like myself, there are ESSENTIAL SERVICES, that are the pervue of government. Fire and Police or among the most basic of these. These services should not be the first cut from the budget but the last, sadly it is often the police and fire that are the FIRST to have their budget cuts in favor of schools, parks, welfare, and other non-essential services. This has to change or situations like this will continue to occur.

    • Anonymous

      1. This was obviously part of the job, don’t put out the fire for people who weren’t enrolled for the service. In this case they WERE doing their job. Were their other options to have this service setup under? Sure, but as the case is, they did their jobs as it is set up, and the homeowner took his chances.Are health insurance companies supposed to jump in to the rescue every time a person gets a hospital bill that is more than they can pay?2. Increase taxes and and land annexation? How very libertarian of you…3. Few Americans actually understand this, but libertarianism encompasses a wide range of socio-economic ideologies.I bet you didn’t know that Anarchism (as an end-goal, not a means to totalitarianism) is libertarian, so is having a state providing minimum services.To a Voluntaryist/Agorist such as myself, there is no ESSENTIAL SERVICE which a state must maintain a monopoly over and fund via extortion (taxes). Voluntary fees for services which individuals can choose to pay for.Libertarianism is not restricted purely to the Libertarian Party (an entity antithetical to libertarianism) platform. It is much more in depth/nuanced than that.

      • Anonymous

        1> the Fire Dept, is not a insurance company, nor is the user fee an analog to a insurance policy. I would not expect State Farm to pay for the guys house if he did not have insurance for it. However if the person makes a verbal agreement to pay for services, then as the government run monopoly for that service they had the obligation to preform the requested service and bill according, then file a lien even possible foreclosure on the home if the money was not paid.

        2> As I will get in to below, there are some services that are the pervue of the government. Anarchy is not a form of governance.

        3>Anarchism is not libertarian, Anarchism is no government, libertarian is the the smallest form of government possible while still being a system of governance. This means basic Laws (crimes against persons{murder, rape, assault etc}, crimes against property{fraud, theft etc}, and a system by which the public as a whole is protected {police, fire, military} These are the basic foundations of governance, Under Anarchism it is one for all, and all for none. Meaning No Military, No Police, No Community, No Country. While that is ultimate freedom, most reasonable people conclude that is not an ideal place to live so we balance that and form a system of governance to provide a few essential services to provide Guards for our future security.

        • Anonymous

          You should read some of the writing by the major contributors to libertarian philosophy, particularly the ones from the Austrian School (the same Austrian School as Friedrich Von Hayek).You should also read about the multiple different Anarchisms out there, they aren’t all the Anarcho-Syndicalists you see running around on a rampage in Greece.”most reasonable people,” pretty subjective label right there. As is the phrase “. . . smallest form of government possible. . .,” who decides what that threshold is? That is precisely what I mean about Libertarian philosophy covering a wide rage of thought.The fun part about opening the door to the state is that no matter what you say and how hard you try to keep that door open only a crack, it already believes it is entitled to using a battering ram to get it open the rest of the way, and make itself home.Any argument for state action requires the assumption that it is justified to use the threat of violence to get it done, all state actions are done with the citizen at the wrong end of the gun.When you demonstrate an understanding of Market Anarchy (one of the extremes of libertarian philosophy, the other being libertarian-socialism) then I’ll discuss the comparative merits of Voluntaryism/Agorism vs. the “Social Contract” myth.I’ll repeat again, Libertarianism as a philosophy does not get it’s name from the Libertarian party, and it is an umbrella term for multiple ideologies, not just the Libertarian Party’s platform. In short, all of the encompassed ideologies revert to “less government than there is right now.”

          • Don17k

            “Any argument for state action requires the assumption that it is justified to use the threat of violence to get it done, all state actions are done with the citizen at the wrong end of the gun.”

            I’m not sure if you realize how flawed this argument is.

            Are roads built at gunpoint? How about hospitals and schools? Seaports and airports? Bridges, dams and levees? Canals and other waterways?

            • Anonymous

              How are they paid for? Oh, that’s right, with extortion/protection/tax money.

              Tax money is taken, without consent at best, under duress more commonly (in the case of us who hate the IRS). What do I mean by that? If you try to withdraw your consent (hint: “consent of the governed) you are threatened and pressured. If you continue to withhold your consent for them to steal your money, they send people in black suits or blue costumes to come “deal” with you. This either means more seriously worded threats or that you will be kidnapped and thrown in a cage for not letting them take your money, for projects you don’t want to pay for. If you try to resist this kidnapping, this is where the gun comes into play.

              The authority of the state ultimately comes from it’s monopoly on violence and the threat to exercise it.

              By the way, if you think the government builds all the hospitals or schools, or HAS to be the one building dams, bridges, levees and canals, you haven’t really looked into it enough.

              • Don17k

                They may tax. Or they may fund it with a lottery, or by charging fares, or tolls or user fees only to those who use the facilities, or by some other means. It doesn’t always require a threat of violence, that was my point.

                • http://twitter.com/PunditPundit Jorge Landivar

                  They may tax.

                  Taxes are taken by threat of force. Lottery is too, indirectly, by threatening violence against anyone that attempts to compete with the state by starting a gambling company.

                • Don17k

                  You strectch waaaay too far. Lottery isn’t by threat of force. Even if no other gambling is permitted, nobody forces anyone to buy the tickets at gunpoint, so the lottery isn’t run by force. Your argument fails. Admit it.

                • Anonymous

                  If there is no other gambling allowed, then the government monopoly is sustained by threat of violence.

                • Don17k

                  But even so, or if all other forms of gambling are state-run, such as pari-mutuel betting on horse racing… nobody is forced to gamble by threat of violence, are they? Nobody is forced to buy the lottery tickets or bet on anything.

            • http://twitter.com/PunditPundit Jorge Landivar

              Yes it is. The money to fund them is collected with the threat of violence. In this case the violence of armed men coming to your house and then throwing you into a concrete and steel cage.

          • Rich

            As usual daniel is right again. I love how so many people here champion libertarian ideas and values, but at the FIRST sign of trouble, they can’t handle it.

            Look, folks. This man made his choice. He decided, of free will, to not pay for fire protection. So someone explain to me where the problem is? Because he made a choice that we don’t like we should go ahead and take care of him anyway, and then after that extort him? Boy, if that isn’t freedom I don’t know what is.

            Freedom is the idea of being able to make a decision and pay for the consequences, good or bad.

            Do you guys not realize how many times you have all argued the opposite of what you’re arguing now? Who here was for TARP? Who here was for bailing out homeowners after they took on a loan they couldn’t afford? Hmm? Those people were about to lose their houses too. THey were about to be homeless too. So many of you were ok with that, afterall, they made a bad choice, why should the taxpayers bail them out. But now, because it’s a fire instead of foreclosure, we act differently? Very odd.

            Finally, it’s hilarious how many of you are attacking Beck’s Christianity now. You’ve come up with your own version of Christianity and our now applying it to beck. If read the whole segment on his website, you’ll see he advocates for the community, VOLUNTARILY, helping this man out now that his house has burned down. Beck is standing exactly where he has stood the whole time. The government, WHICH THIS FIRE DEPARTMENT IS, is not here to save everyone. When bad things happen, they aren’t here to help us out, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT HAPPENS BECAUSE OF OUR OWN CHOICE. No, when you make a bad choice and something bad happens, the government is not here to save you. Instead, that is the moral responsibility of neighbors and family and the local community. Beck has always said this and yet so many of you act shocked. Odd. Maybe you disagree with the notion that the fire department shouldn’t have helped, but you shouldn’t be shocked that this was Beck’s position. He has said this all along.

            Finally, for everyone arguing that the fire department saving this house is a moral issue, and to not do it makes them (and by extension those who agree with their decision), immoral, are just a few steps away from a progressive making that same exact arguement about health care.

            • Anonymous

              Wow, I can’t believe someone actually said any of that, I hadn’t read the rest of the segment on his website, but had a feeling there would be that caveat/addendum on there if it wasn’t directly after where the clip ended.

              You’re exactly right about your point on healthcare. Give them an inch and you’ll be bull-rushed into submission and have only your lack of “eternal vigilance” to blame.

              This is my objection to Minarchism, eternal vigilance is an impossibility, everyone lets their guard down from time to time.

              you flatter me though, I’m wrong plenty, but as Carl Sagan said “That’s perfectly alright, it’s the aperture to finding out what is right.”

            • KeninMontana

              Well said.

            • Cheryl~

              Even if we do foolish things Christ STILL has compassion on us…we still may suffer the consequences of our choices but nontheless Christ is still there with compassion…the FIRE DEPARTMENT should have put the fire out…then the city should have sent the family the bill…things COULD HAVE gotten out of hand and done more damage…it IS a foolish policy by this town or city.

              • Rich

                The man does NOT live in the city. By all rights, they don’t even have an obligation to cover this man at all.

                It’s a policy I would love to have where I live, because unlike this guy, I’m not a simpleton.

            • tim

              TARP worked, and without it, people like you and Daniel wouldn’t have so much free time on your hands to ponder these abstractions, or for that matter, a pot to piss in. If you think letting the system collapse was the smart/right thing to do, you don’t understand the scale of the problem.

              It is colossally ignorant of Christian theology to think it was the Christian thing to do to let a man’s house burn down when you have the means to stop it, regardless of any other circumstances. It’s just ignorant in general.

              All these theoretical, abstract ideas about free markets, moral hazards, personal responsibility look great on paper, and I’m sure they make some people feel very good and self-righteous. Unless you have the brains to think about the actual consequences in real life.

              • Anonymous

                If you are going to suggest that Rich or I are self-righteous, it might go a long way to dial back the tone of (self)righteous indignation in your response. Hypocrisy is not flattering.Given what Rich actually said about the full content of Beck’s radio segment on this, I fail to see any perversion of Christian theology, though it is of little consequence to me. Given the true nature of the problem, TARP was necessary to alleviate the issue and rectify the root cause going forward (government mandates on loaning practices). The problem is that it isn’t being executed as such.To be honest though, I was unaware that it takes much free time at all to consider one’s own political/economic philosophy. Learn something new every day.

            • tim

              TARP worked, and without it, people like you and Daniel wouldn’t have so much free time on your hands to ponder these abstractions, or for that matter, a pot to piss in. If you think letting the system collapse was the smart/right thing to do, you don’t understand the scale of the problem.

              It is colossally ignorant of Christian theology to think it was the Christian thing to do to let a man’s house burn down when you have the means to stop it, regardless of any other circumstances. It’s just ignorant in general.

              All these theoretical, abstract ideas about free markets, moral hazards, personal responsibility look great on paper, and I’m sure they make some people feel very good and self-righteous. Unless you have the brains to think about the actual consequences in real life.

  • Anonymous

    This is sad, and an example of what it is like to “live under the letter of the law”. We must find a way to seek personal responsibility without abandoning mercy and compassion.

    • http://twitter.com/PunditPundit Jorge Landivar

      A good compromise is something like 15 or 20 grand charged on the spot if they come.

  • Don1701a

    Glenn Beck shows his true colors, at last! For all his professing to be “Christian” he has no more pity than anyone else, and in fact showed a good deal less, by mocking the victim. Or is that what he thinks Jesus would do? But go ahead, Glenn. Laugh it up. Enjoy yourself.

    The people lived outside city limits. In most places, that means handling an emergency there would fall to the county. That’s the way it is where I live. My home is not within the limits of any incorporated city, so city police and fire don’t respond… the county does.

  • grim89

    first of all the on the spot fee would be far higher than 500$ since the fire department functions as insurance in this case and there is a big difference between intervention costs and the annual fee the people pay.

    second the on the spot fee is very likely to get the city sued for extortion or something along those lines and as u can see by the comments everybody is libertarian as long as nobody pays for their own mistakes because that is just EVIL
    so the city doesn’t like its chances in court and decides not to take on the spot
    fees as Stossel would say lawyers :(

    • Don17k

      No, they aren’t functioning as insurance, unless they’re offering to pay for rebuilding and replacing the home and contents. That’s what insurance does.

      It probably would be considered extortion, if they required payment before they put out the fire. If they put it out, and then billed him for the actual cost, it isn’t extortion, it’s more akin to code enforcement.

      • http://twitter.com/PunditPundit Jorge Landivar

        No, extortion requires they set the fire or threatened to do so. They did no direct harm to this man, his own lack of fire safety when burning in barrels did.

        • Don17k

          That’s one form of extortion, but the other form is to extract payment from one under duress. If you’re drowning in a lake, and a lifeguard rows out to you, but refuses to haul you aboard unless you give him your $5000 Rolex… that’s extortion.

  • grim89

    also go to theblaze.com Glenn’s people go much more in depth than John did here its like tree pages of info it also explains how the local government works in those parts
    so people can stop screaming that this is anarchy and similar nonsense

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6RLAMCU6Z7PZKSSP7FQWJPT77E nervouscat

    What if it was a matter of life and death and the owner was inside the burning house and needed to be rescued? What if a human being died in that house? Instead of saying the system works – change the system. It’s a f*cked up way to do business. In an emergency you don’t think – you act. Beck comes off as being unsympathetic and cold this time. Makes me think compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron.

    • Anonymous

      Freedom necessitates responsibility. The man was irresponsible with his property and with the well-being of anyone who may have been in the house.

      Compassionate Conservatism IS an oxymoron, if you use the common understanding of Conservatism which is a synonym for Minarchism.

      We all know that Conservatism when it’s given the power it wants is just a different flavor and intensity of statism.

  • Anonymous

    Okay, so he forgot to pay the fee for fire protection. We all forget sometimes. But the guy is without a home now. Regardless of whether the city was right or wrong about their choice to let his house burn down, there is something I really think would be nice to happen. What if Glenn Beck set up a paypal fund or other thing, and just mentioned it on the air on his radio show? If he had 50k people send in 5 bucks apeice, he could raise 250k or whatever amount to build the man a new home. According to the MSNBC clip he does have insurance but its not going to do all that much. It would be a nice gesture. It would be another good example of what we do as Americans to look out for one another.

    • Rich

      He is no different than a lot of people before TARP. How many of us argue against TARP on a daily basis. What is the difference? Home-owners were about to lose their homes because of a silly decision that they made, and we, the people, could help them out by bailing them out. What is the difference folks?

      I want someone to answer this question before I make what seems like an obvious observation on why it is so many of you (including me) were ok with NOT bailing people out who were about to be homeless but now you aren’t ok with these firemen not helping this guy out (not including me).

      • Anonymous

        I’d like to hear your observation. Its apparent to me that we can do things out of the goodness of our hearts by choice rather than having our money, our opportunity, and therefore our choices robbed from us.

        • Rich

          Yes, we the people, can do things out of choice instead of having the govt. bail people out with TARP.

          Can we not do the same here? This man made a choice. Now, instead of the govt. taking action and saving this man’s home (unlike what they did with TARP), they did what we all said they should have done with those who took on loans they couldn’t afford. They let him become a homeless man. We the people can help him, but why is it we are now asking the government to do it/wishing the govt. would have done it? We can easily set up some sort of facebook fund and put this man in a new house within a week. Isn’t that how it SHOULD be?

      • Don17k

        For a start… How about TARP didn’t bail out the homeowners who made dumb decisions, it bailed out the bankers who made dumb decisions?

        I wouldn’t have bailed them out with TARP. I would have let the mortgagee foreclose, but required them to let the homeowner continue to live there, for a fair rent. Nobody is served by suddenly having a glut of housing go on the local market, by having large numbers of families in search of housing, no longer being in their home district, having to pull kids out of school…

        • Rich

          When you bailout companies that had to totally write off hundreds of billions of dollars because of unpaid mortgages, you bailout those who are responsible for paying those mortgages. If you don’t like that comparison then use the parts of TARP and the stimulus that allowed people to escape from their credit card debt.

          In your plan, you are still advocating for a govt. take over of something. It’s either the banks or the homes the people are now renting. If not, then you’re still going to need to bailout the banks. Either way, it’s all big government.

          • Don17k

            Aren’t the companies who wrote those mortgages responsible for their own bad choices? If they loaned more than the properties are worth, let them deal with the loss. I’m saying that having tens of thousands of displaced persons isn’t good either. I’m not saying the borrowers get a free pass, they should lose ownership of a home they can’t afford, and they should have to pay rent to the owner.

  • Anonymous

    Okay, so he forgot to pay the fee for fire protection. We all forget sometimes. But the guy is without a home now. Regardless of whether the city was right or wrong about their choice to let his house burn down, there is something I really think would be nice to happen. What if Glenn Beck set up a paypal fund or other thing, and just mentioned it on the air on his radio show? If he had 50k people send in 5 bucks apeice, he could raise 250k or whatever amount to build the man a new home. According to the MSNBC clip he does have insurance but its not going to do all that much. It would be a nice gesture. It would be another good example of what we do as Americans to look out for one another.

  • KeninMontana

    The residents of this county obviously chose to cover the costs of their fire protection in this way,it was their choice. Many Libertarians espouse the “subscription” method for Fire and Police protection,and I’m sure they voted on it. According to the SCOTUS awhile back local police are not under any obligation to prevent crime or protect victims; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976377/posts
    In closing this individual new how fire protection worked where he lives,he knew the risks of not paying the fee. However that is not to say he has no recourse,for example if the neighbor was found to be responsible for starting the fire.

    • Anonymous

      I’m glad you’re on this side of it, Ken, everyone seems to be operating purely off emotion and visceral reaction.

      Was worried it would just be myself (and apparently Rich, too).

      • Rich

        Sadly, this is where I feel most people fall. They are all for the “idea” of freedom and small government except when they see an example of it actually playing out.

        A man made a choice. He paid for that choice. Now people are afraid of making choices.

        • Anonymous

          Freedom requires we be responsible and informed.

          If one is not willing to take up the mantle of both, he/she is not ready for freedom.

          • Cheryl~

            Beck says we should be there to help our neighbors out…isn’t that what he preaches? Not everyone does what they are supposed to do when they are supposed to do it…now you can say to them you get what’s coming to you, or you can go in with COMPASSION and help out(which is what the firefighters should have done and then BILLED or FINED them)…or do we only have compassion when people do what they are supposed to do?

            Like the local paper in this town stated the neighbors agree it is a dangerous policy that the city has set forth…and we know looking all across this nation that there are plenty of foolish, incompetent people that run cities and towns, this seems to be one of them.

            • Anonymous

              I’m not saying the friends, family and neighbors can’t volunteer to help the guy out. I would encourage it.

              My problem is where people are claiming government absolutely HAS to pass a tax/make payment mandatory (extortion/threat of violence) for the service that some of us, him obviously at the time, would prefer to have our money to spend elsewhere.

              Charity and volunteerism is great, using a sense of compassion over his loss to justify stealing everyone else’s money with the government, though, makes no sense to me as any kind of rational answer.

              • Rich

                This.

                Some of you have totally confused and mis-heard Becks overall message. Charity does NOT come from the government. Compassion does NOT come from the government. Yet, here we are arguing that compassion and charity should have come from these on-duty firemen, aka govt.

                • Don17k

                  Not compassion and charity. Competence and concern for the citizens who pay the taxes. And even if he didn’t pay taxes to the city, he paid to the county.

        • Don17k

          This is where a failure to see the bigger picture and the dangers it includes leads to moral bankruptcy. What do you say to the man who rented and never got the chance to pay the $75? Or who knew about it and paid it to a landlord, who simply pocketed the money, or forgot to mail it in to the city?

          • Rich

            You sue the landlord for his incompetence.

            Anyway, this does not lead to moral bankruptcy. The people, including us, always have the ability to help our fellow man without the assistance of the government. The people, and not the govt., control the moral compass of a society.

            • KeninMontana

              Just a heads up Rich, you are dealing with a dyed in the wool big government progressive with Don. He will pull out all the stops, strawman arguments,red herrings, and non sequiturs, he will constantly employ circular arguments til he is blue in the face without ever answering a direct question with a direct answer.

              • Don17k

                I’m touched that you remember me, Ken. BTW, I never get blue in the face… red in the fingers, maybe….

                The non-sequiturs were always related, although it may have been difficult to follow. As for strawmen (just another word for analogies, really), and red herrings… you all use them. In this thread, for example, mentioning the fact that nobody’s life was lost (as I’ve seen many do here in defense of the policy) is a red herring and a non-sequitur, since that is nothing to do with the matter in question.

            • Don17k

              So you sue the landlord. You may never collect a dime, and everything you own is still gone. Also, the city may have a clerical error. It happens. This is just a very stupid precedent.

              • Rich

                Stupid precedent for who? He doesn’t live in the city, so I don’t care what kind of error they have because it doesn’t effect this guy.

                Like I said below, the stupid precedent was set before, when they did save a house that hadn’t paid the fee. This guy knew that, and then chose to not pay his fee because he figured he would get free coverage too.

                Yes, everything you own is still gone. I don’t know what to tell you brother, but life is tough. Bad things happen. If this scares you then vote democrat. They also believe life is simply to scary to live in a free society where people can make decisions without the backstop of the govt. to catch them if they mess up.

                • Don17k

                  I’m saying that it sometimes happens, in both business and government, that people make their payments, but the payment is credited to the wrong account. It sometimes happens that a bank will make an error and a check will be returned to maker when there was money to cover it. Or a check is mailed in and never arrives. Haven’t you heard of cops searching the wrong house, companies repo’ing the wrong car? That didn’t happen in this case, but the fact that they would let a house burn down because it “wasn’t on their list of those that had paid” is what I think sets a stupid precedent. The fire could have been put out. If it turns out that the $75 wasn’t paid, the homeowner and insurance could have been charged the full cost of putting out the fire. As it is, the county will be getting less taxes based upon there no longer being a house there.

                  As for voting Dem… I’ll probably vote independent where I can, but it depends on who’s running. I don’t like any of the Dems’ positions in my area, but the GOP candidates haven’t come up with a single idea that doesn’t have more potential to make things worse than better.

      • Anonymous

        Daniel, believe it or not, I think we’re in agreement on this issue.

        • Anonymous

          No way! Haha, good to hear it. We agree on a lot more, I guarantee it, it’s just the disagreements in life that are most of the interesting times.

        • Anonymous

          No way! Haha, good to hear it. We agree on a lot more, I guarantee it, it’s just the disagreements in life that are most of the interesting times.

    • Don17k

      This would appear to be one of your non-sequiturs and red herrings, Ken.

      We’re not talking about police protection from criminals or those with criminal intent.

      But your citation is useful in one regard: In fact, the courts in those cases ruled that police are only tasked with arresting lawbreakers and prosecuting them to protect society at large, right? But not to protect any individual who might be in danger. And this ruling holds even for those who live within city limits, right? Regardless of who paid or didn’t pay any fee or tax, that wasn’t part of their rulings.

      So, if you want to translate this to fire departments… it would mean the fire department is not required to put out any fire at any individual’s house, inside or outside city limits, and regardless of who paid or didn’t pay any fee or tax, right? Nor are they required to prevent fires. They need only stop fires from getting out of control, and investigate arson?

      Great way to stretch those budget dollars. How about you suggest it to your local community officials?

  • Porthuronpunk

    What some seem to not understand is this house was out side the city limit’s. Their is no fire protection outside the city. The city makes their fire department available to county residents for a fee. Consider it fire insurance. This guy chose to build in a low tax rate area with little to no services. Why should the city resident’s who pay higher taxes to recieve services be forced to subsidize those who do not pay for services. The fire chief did state that if human life was at stake the would enter the building to save human life. Get a gripe people. Many of you say you are long time GB listener’s, haven’t you understood what he has been saying, personal responsibility.

    • 2brealist

      I agree but..

      You need to see 2 other very important societies in our society

      1st.. Compassion
      You don’t just allow something harmful happen to another citizen if you are able to help.. That’s just not American. Ethical responsibility is the bases for legal responsibility, not vice verse

      2nd. There’s always a lesson, and a price to pay.
      The home owner was away of his citation and was willing to pay what ever price to protect his home.. The fire-department should have done there duty, put out the fire.. and send the home owner a detailed BILL!!
      In which his insurance should cover.

      Now that.. is the American way. And rightfully so.

      • Cheryl~

        You stated the TRUTH perfectly! I totally agree with you!

  • tim

    So I asked the undertaker what it took to make him laugh
    When all he ever saw is people cryin’.
    First he hands me a bunch of flowers that he’d received on my behalf
    He said, “Steve, business just gets better all the time.”

    And it ain’t too hard it to get along with somebody else’s troubles,
    They don’t make you lose any sleep at night.
    As long as fate is out there burstin’ somebody else’s bubbles
    Everything is gonna be alright.
    And everything is gonna alright.

    – Steve Goodman

    Jesus Christ, put out the fire and send them a damn bill for the $75 and a fine. Idiots.

  • No One

    Glenn – this is an example of WHY you are an IDIOT!

    You are NOT a “thinker” – because you “think” the way MOST people Defecate…..

    Meaning: in Short, Smelly, SPURTS!

  • No One

    75$ has NOTHING to do with the cost of “putting out” a fire.

    This is absolutely unconscionable.

    So if a child had been in the house, would they have said, “Sorry, bub, but you can watch your baby burn for $75″? It’s despicable, inhumane, and immoral.

    you save the freakin house/home and then you settle up with the stupid owner!

    to watch this place burn is exactly what they expect us to do when the haul my butt to the gas chamber for believing in Jesus!

    • Rich

      “So if a child had been in the house, would they have said, “Sorry, bub, but you can watch your baby burn for $75″? It’s despicable, inhumane, and immoral.”

      If you would actually read up on the story, they specifically said they would have went in and helped had someone been in danger. Instead, you decide to type in ignorance.

      It’s laughable that so many of you Christians are still wishing to impose your moral standards on everyone else. The firefighters have a job. The job is to protect those who live in their district from fire. Another part is to protect those who live outside of their district AND pay the 75$ fee. They did their job.

      You’re about a hop and skip away from socialized medicine. Afterall, is it not inhumane that some of the best treatments cost so much money? Should we not simply nationalize all of it so everyone can have it? I mean, there are people who can’t/don’t pay and will suffer because of it. Half of you are making a progressive’s arguement for them.

      • Anonymous

        Just stop it Rich, using reason is so unfair when people are working purely from the quicksand foundation of emotion (oh the outrage!).

        Just look at that last sentence of his, that should be a clue that this guy isn’t rational, and to bother would constitute a waste of time.

        • Rich

          The sad thing is I am also a Christian and am very distraught at seeing fellow Christians outraged that their moral belief system isn’t shared by the rest of the world.

          I, as a free-thinking Christian (or anything else for that matter) can make a choice to help my fellow man when his house burns to the ground. I actually think I should make that choice in most circumstances. That is NOT the same as me wanting SOMEONE ELSE to make that same choice, and then being upset and angered when they do not.

          • Anonymous

            That wasn’t a smack on Christians, just delusional paranoia, but it’s refreshing to see someone (anyone) not seeking to impose their morality on the thoughts of others.

            • Rich

              No, I wasn’t implying you were going after Christians. I said that because the guy above mentioned believing in Jesus.

              • Anonymous

                Bah lol I’m failing really badly at conveying my thoughts tonight.

                Wasn’t saying you were saying that I was going after Christians, was just making extra clarifications (and apparently achieving the opposite).

                Maybe that’s my embarrassed guilt over being a tad too belligerent in some of my posts over the last week or two.

                • Rich

                  Ah, I got you. THe comment referred to what the above poster was saying. I’m with it now.

  • SoConfused

    Since so many believe it’s OK to pay for the fire protection after the fact, perhaps these people should just look into some retroactive fire insurance. Under the same rational thinking, they can just pay a couple months back premiums and receive a check from the insurance company for full replacement cost.

  • SoConfused

    Since so many believe it’s OK to pay for the fire protection after the fact, perhaps these people should just look into some retroactive fire insurance. Under the same rational thinking, they can just pay a couple months back premiums and receive a check from the insurance company for full replacement cost.

  • http://twitter.com/JoeKenHa Joseph

    I find the “charity” poster behind Glenn a little ironic in this case…not to say that I don’t agree with him or anything. Actually, I don’t know how I feel about this.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/F6KFE2K5VUWYWAJFJ74CY5LFTQ Sir Shagsalot

    Hope that guy with the charred house has a few warm embers to sleep next to tonight. Either that or at least the $75 he saved by being irresponsible can go to a Motel 6.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CUMG74FGAZXHWN3ZY3LPC5PWE Angel

    Who is the “Government” which should do certain things, such as field a fire department?
    A) Some Despot (A militant person who came in and took over the land area? )
    B ) The People. (through elected officials!)
    C) The city (that does not have any power outside the prescribed city limits?)
    D) Some other entity (One that cannot be named or described, it just is. ?)

    Those of you who answered B must be conservatives and as conservatives should understand that the people of the county are the ones responsible for determining which public services they desire to pay for through taxes or fees. They have several avenues of approach to get these services:
    1) Petition the standing government and hope they agree.
    2) Vote for people to replace the current government that will enact the changes.
    3) Run for government office and make the changes yourself.
    4) Pool together and and create a non government coop Fire department.
    5) Field a volunteer FD and fund raise like mad.
    6) Create a non profit or for profit company that duplicates the FD and charge a per service fee (would that lead to lots of arson?).
    7) If all else fails, its a free country, move somewhere where there are the services you want at prices you want to pay.

    This is the reason we have a limited federal government, so we all can get the government we want by either choosing leaders who will do our bidding, or moving to a place that fits our ideal.

    2009 Census = 78,850,000 Family Households, 38,331,000 Non-family Households = 117,181,000 households.
    2009 USFA number of residential fires. 377,000, which means in any given year, your house has a 1 in 311 chance of burning down.
    In order for the fire department to keep it’s current funding level/ household outside its prescribed district based on the $75 fee it would need to charge $23311.87 to put a fire out on an as needed basis.

    $500? I mean seriously? what kind of cheapskate are you? It is like all of you people are taught liberal mathematics.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DKXSUHFLHSWCYDUMDFTKGH7O2I John

    Glenn is dead wrong on this. Fire is not just a danger to the home of the guy that didn’t pay — it doesn’t much care what fees you’re paid up on. It will spread as fast and far as conditions allow. The story says that it wasn’t until it had *already spread* to a neighbor’s property (paid up and all) that they rolled out to the site. Criminy — under the right kind of wind conditions with all that dry grass and fuel seen on the video, WHOOMMM!! and you’ve got yourself a major brush fire consuming thousands of acres, scores of homes and endangering lives. Then ya have to get the State in there, water bombers, fire crews working fire breaks, the whole nine yards…all because some dumb-nuts city manager is demanding a $75 fee and the local FD decided to sit around and wait until the paying customer called in. Yep. That makes sense. For want of a $75 fee millions of dollars of damage and resources could be expended. Brilliant.

  • Sailfish

    Beck, et. al. are wrong. Just because a person makes a stupid decision to play fire roulette with their home doesn’t justify that a fire should be ignored. If it were a situation where they could only save either a fee-paid burning house or a non-fee paid house, then a case could be made to save the fee-paid house over the other. This was not the case in this instance. As to the red herring about no one paying, I take issue with that since most civic-minded people will pay the fee.

    The callousness exhibited by the fire department and those conservatives that support their decision is what makes people hesitate when deciding to vote for conservatives. Some too often see only the black and white on these types of issues and fail to truly understand that the stupid homeowner still deserves to have their house and live-long memories saved, despite themselves.

    • Rich

      Wait, someone deserves to have their house saved even when they freely decide that they don’t care if it’s protected in the first place? The man made a choice. Why is it so hard for so many of you to live with the choice he made? You guys are asking the fire department to betray the contract they have with the people of their city. Please, do tell, what is moral about that? It simply was NOT the firemen’s place to decide to save this man’s house. They don’t make those rules. Ultimately, the tax-payers of their city made those rules, and you’re asking them to go against the rules they made.

      These ideas that government should act with a moral compass are going to be fantastic to see when the liberals start pushing for single-payer. I can’t wait to see where so many of you stand then. They can just come to this site and get the basis for their arguement.

      • http://www.projectit.com Anonymous

        It’s really simple, if the city has the resource to save the house, then save the house. Afterward, they can sort out how to make the homeowner pay for the cost of the effort.

        Let me ask you, if this was a situation where it was a volunteer police department and the person refused to pay a yearly fee but was being robbed at gunpoint and a police unit driving by was able to respond. Should they simply ignore the robbery? Is that really the type of community you’d want to live in?

        • Anonymous

          Sounds like you want a state mandated safety net for people who make short-sighted irresponsible decisions.With the exception of drug raids and parking tickets, the cops in my area only come in the clean the mess and then lazily go about the business of “justice” (post facto punishment). If I’m killed in a home invasion, I don’t really care if the guy gets the needle for it, I’m still dead.They don’t prevent crimes in my neck of the woods, they just react to them between dragging people into the klink for victim-less crimes.

          EDIT: Though, granted in the situation you give, time is too short to check the people enrolled in the service and up to date on fees, so an on the spot heavier service charge would make much more sense, if after resolution of the incident, the victim turned out to be someone benefiting without paying.

          • http://www.projectit.com Anonymous

            Nice try with the “state-mandated safety net” straw-man but I refuse to entertain your “change the subject” attempt.

            Sorry to hear about the kind of neighborhood you live in, sucks to live where you do.

            A fire department, volunteer or no, is supposed to put out fires. That’s what they do.

            • Anonymous

              It’s hardly a strawman or a red herring, you are insisting on a universal state provided service funded with extorted money to be the safety net for people like this short-sighted and irresponsible homeowner.

              That may be what your fire department was about, but technically a Fire Department’s job is what is in it’s charter/mission statement/whatever it’s called, in this case it was to not put the reward for this makes cavalier attitude.

              My town is actually pretty nice, we do just fine without omnipresent police officers, which makes me more than sure we don’t all need to be forced to pay for a service practically none of us benefit from whilst alive.

              • http://www.projectit.com Anonymous

                Really! Insisting on all that, I was? Actually, don’t you think it would be even better to crank it up a bit and forget about universal assistance and just go with the whole banana, Universe-funded assistance?

                Is your argument now so weak that you now are reduced to citing dubious “technicalities”?

                You do have a tendencies to go off on the deep end, no? Omnipresent police officers, you say. Read 1984 much?

                • Anonymous

                  I guess the concept of mild exaggeration is a foreign concept to you, the indignation is amusing though, keep pretending like it lends what you say extra weight. Who knows, maybe it will actually work on someone.

                  The “technicality” was no expression of weakness for my position, it was to illustrate for you the simple fact that you are ignoring the very nature of how the Fire Department in this case works and what their jobs are. Just because you have an idea of their responsibilities that seems familiar and right in your head does not make that the case for all Departments.

                  If you can’t come to terms with that, then I don’t know what to tell you. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.

                • http://www.projectit.com Anonymous

                  Mild exaggeration is not foreign to me and if you hadn’t hoped that it might help bring gravitas to your otherwise vacuous position, why use it?

                  I’m not sure what else I can do to attempt to enlighten you about “doing the right thing” mentality. Let’s try this. I work as a cashier at 7-11. My job entails cleaning up, re-stocking products accepting cash for goods bought … thing like that. So, here I am tooling around doing “my job” and I notice that a person’s car, someone who has never frequented my store, is being broken into. Do I:

                  a. Snicker and think, “Schmuck never gave me money”, screw him and his car.
                  b. Decide to call the omnipresent police force and request aid for the person.
                  c. Grab a Slurpee swizzle straw, leap over the counter and decide to fend-off the would-be miscreants?

                  You, no doubt, will pick “a.”, few, if any, would pick “c.”, many, perhaps most, would pick item “b”.

                  Finally, the last vestige of an argument loser is to resort to ad hominem and blame the gods for using it.

                • Anonymous

                  You again miss the point.

                  This isn’t about the what free individuals do, whether it is the right thing or not. This is about the governments expressed responsibilities/job.

                  You again fail to grasp what the heart of this issue is. The job of the Fire Department in this case was to not put out the fire. The Fire Department, not a group of good samaritans, meaning a local government entity, until it is properly privatized.

                  The free individuals making up the man’s friends, family and neighbors have all freely chosen to give charitably and volunteer to help him rebuild.

                  The Fire Department was a service to be paid for, he chose not to, he reaped the consequences. Those of us who see the government as unnecessary to provide “essential” services advocate the freedom of CHOICE this system gives to both the man and his neighbors.

                  The standard system involves taxation/extortion to pay for something none of the “governed” have any say in.

                  And if you take a whole 6 seconds to go up and read, I already conceded that given the nature of police work, a service fee after calling would likely be necessary for this.

                  And why not use exaggeration, this exchange is becoming a parody at best of two people talking past each other. It’s cute though, keep it up.

                • http://www.projectit.com Anonymous

                  I never failed to miss your short-sighted point, I just never accepted it.

                  The volunteer Fire Department is made up of free individuals, no? Too bad they somehow ended up being the ones who chose not to be charitable when it was needed most. You may not mind living in a forsaken Bedford Falls neighborhood where one can easily rationalize how it makes perfect sense to let the house burn in order to save the house but I’ll not be stopping by your neighborhood anytime soon.

                  Anyway, there are none so blind than those who refuse to see or, something like that.

                  I’ll leave the last word to you.

                  Godspeed

                • Anonymous

                  edit: double-post.

  • http://tastyinfidelicacies.blogspot.com Scherzophrenic

    What about ambulance associations?

  • Todd

    I can

  • Bushwackca

    I agree with GB and I posted the same thing yesterday. The fee is like insurance. Can you pay GEICO AFTER you wreck your car? Can you only get health insurance AFTER you get sick? The real problem here is we Americans have become so spoiled. There are no consequences for inaction or action anymore. This is a consequence of ignorance.

    You know the fire dept is not going to save your house in a fire if you don’t pay the fee, yet you decide that it’s worth the risk because NO way would a fire dept let your house burn….Well they did. Guess what, EVERY one will pay that fee now. It’s a tough luck story but it’s not the FD or the city’s fault. The fault is with the homeowner.

  • Todd

    This is a completely idiotic argument. For 75 dollars the city lost hundreds, probably thousands in property tax, because the property value is now zero.Now the neighbors are going to have to pay higher property taxes to fill this gap.
    And by the way the firemen were available. They sat on their asses!!! GLENN you are wrong this time around.

    • Rich

      In a word, no. I don’t understand why so many of you are commenting w/o reading the story at all. The city lost 0 property taxes because, get this, THE MAN LIVED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE FIRE DEPT. Good lord.

  • ctmom

    When my husband fell ill in L.A. I got a hefty bill from the paramedics who came to his aid. Thank God they didn’t fail to respond because he hadn’t paid a “fee”. Why not use the same idea with fighting fire?

  • Jfrowmo

    The man lives in a rural county. He has paid property taxes on his land and any improvements to it. I am assuming that his house was an improvement to his land which resulted in more taxes being paid to the county which I guarantee, amount to more than the 75.00 fee. Now his house is gone and his property taxes will drop drastically because of it. In short, the house was an asset to more than just the man. If you don’t protect your assets you are putting yourself at risk of losing them. The county where this house was located lost all future property tax revenue from it. There is a heck of a lot more losers in this than just the home owner. The fire department is being run like it was a business that is protecting it’s assets. I suggest that the county start doing the same.

  • David

    It’s a stupid policy; this is a basic service required by an entire community, and it’s the sort of thing that should be covered by basic taxes, not optional charges. Alternately, it would be reasonable to impose a post-fire charge for the department’s services, if only to distribute the costs somewhat more reasonably. Having said that, regarding this particular case, as Abraham Lincoln said, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strictly.

  • Faylyn

    Glenn runs adds and talks about being prepared to take care of your neighbor during times of trouble. Hello, this guy was/is in trouble.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, and if you research the case any further than the surface you will see that his friends and neighbors are helping him.

      That is precisely how people ought to behave.

  • Anonymous

    So much for firefighters being “heroes”, huh?

    I’m sorry, but seeing firemen standing around watching a house burn to the ground, no matter what the reason, kills that iconic image forever.

  • Dfblandscaping

    If there was a person trapped in this fire does the policy change.Why don’t they just have the fee in their property taxes to begin with like any normal town!!!!

  • snoozie

    Personal. Responsibility. = No Pay fee in timely manner…House burns. Your own dang fault.

    • Anonymous

      Why is this concept so hard for so many to grasp?

      • KeninMontana

        They are also missing a key piece of information here, the fire dept serves a town, the town offered to extend protection outside of town limits to rural residents for a small annual fee, not only does this home owner not live within the town limits he lives outside the county the town is a part of.

        • Don17k

          But he does live in the county, right? He pays taxes to the county. Does the county to whom he pays taxes have no responsibility whatsoever to provide the basic services of fire and police to its taxpayers? Is that the argument you’re making?

        • Don17k

          But he does live in the county, right? He pays taxes to the county. Does the county to whom he pays taxes have no responsibility whatsoever to provide the basic services of fire and police to its taxpayers? Is that the argument you’re making?

      • KeninMontana

        They are also missing a key piece of information here, the fire dept serves a town, the town offered to extend protection outside of town limits to rural residents for a small annual fee, not only does this home owner not live within the town limits he lives outside the county the town is a part of.

  • Nim

    This is how we restore honor by making fun of a fellow American’s tragic loss?

  • Tipdog

    So, If I’m being robbed at gun point, then because I don’t pay a certain “TAX”, then according to this rational, the cops would not only allow the thief to rob me at gun point, but to also murder me on the spot? Because of a fee?

    • Rich

      A life and death scenario this was not, so you’re comparing apples to oranges.

      Anyway, I don’t understand why the concept of getting what you pay for is such a foreign idea. He didn’t pay for the service, therefore he does not receive it.

      It was NOT a tax, because he wasn’t forced to pay it. He was given a choice. I mean, are the services and goods you pay for also taxes? No. Taxes are forced upon you, this wasn’t.

      • Tipdog

        Not so. I disagree. This was a civil service.

      • Don17k

        Your argument is specious.

        Not all taxes are forced upon you. You don’t have to pay property tax if you choose not to own property. You don’t have to pay income tax if you choose not to have taxable income, or if you don’t have more income than the exemptions you’re entitled to claim.

        Also, you can be forced to pay things other than taxes. Such as debts. Such as fines (which are not the same as taxes, since they are for acts which violate laws, while taxes are for acts which comply with them.) Such as punitive and/or remedial damages. Such as child support and alimony.

        • Rich

          The arguement that you don’t have to live in a house in order to avoid property taxes is silly at best. You also don’t have to eat or drink if you choose not to waste money their either. There are absolute necessities in life.

          They are eating, breathing, and shelter. Without these things, you die. In this day and age you can throw a wage in there too, but I guess you can just grow your own food and live off of that. To argue that govt. taxation on a basic need in order to live is somehow by “choice” is faulty. The only way that is the case if you are going to argue that we have a choice between living and dying from day one, and if we choose to live then everything after that is somehow a service that can and should be taxed because we did make the “choice” to keep on living. That’s basically what you’re saying when you argue that a property tax is a choice. You chose to live, so now you get to pay the tax because of your choice.

          However, a fire department is NOT necessary in order to live. As a matter of fact, the majority of people will never need it…you know, unlike some sort of property somewhere in order to build shelter for yourself. It’s a service, much like public transportation is a service. If I don’t ride the bus, should I pay taxes for it?

          Now, I don’t understand your second paragraph because I never once said that taxes were the only types of payments forced upon you.

          And let me get this straight, tipdog, are you trying to argue that all civil services should be provided free of charge? I mean, if your complaint is that it’s wrong to deny him coverage because he didn’t pay the tax, and then back that up by saying this is a civil service, are you not implying civil services should be free of charge? Just a question.

          And, for anyone who cares, the guy said today that the reason he CHOSE NOT TO PAY IT was because someone else who didn’t pay it still received coverage. Basically, he was purposely trying to game the system in order to get a free lunch…and you guys have a problem with him losing his bet? I truly don’t understand it.

          • Don17k

            Shelter is not really required. You don’t die without shelter, as the many homeless in this country can attest. But even if you disagree with that, owning that shelter, certainly is not required. And if you don’t own it, you don’t pay the taxes on it. Certainly, you pay the rent and the owner probably pays the taxes (or may have some kind of exemption or deferment), but the point is, the tenant isn’t paying them. Having been a landlord, I know that there are times when the market is depressed and the rent doesn’t even cover the mortgage, taxes and insurance.

            I’m also not saying that all services should be provided fee of charge. I’m saying that in a case like this, there are ample ways to assure that the additional fee gets paid, many of which have already been discussed in this thread. A few examples, the county can arrange to cover all fire services, including in the municipalities. Those in the cities get one rate, those in the unincorporated areas pay the extra $75. Another way is for the homeowners insurance to automatically pay the $75 and add it to the premium, which mitigates their liability.

            As for the guy saying that he chose not to pay… I’ve heard the guy on TV, and he said he forgot to send in the extra $75, that neighbors of his were willing to pay $5000 to spray water on the fire, and that was refused. This means the fire dept incurred the expense of sending their people out there for not an extra dime, when they could have been compensated for it.

  • JBD

    If they cannot enforce payment of the fee then how can they enforce payment for the fire fighting effort? They’d be meddling outsiders. Perhaps the home owner wanted the house burned down and the people whining were not really the home owner.

    Grow up and take responsibility for your own bad choices. That’s all I can offer that sorry fool home owner who thought he could freeload.

    {^_^}

  • http://twitter.com/daveinstpaul David Radcliffe

    This is astonishing. The government has the means to punish people who are delinquent on their taxes. Letting people’s property burn and killing their pets is not an appropriate punishment. What the hell is wrong with people?

    • Rich

      The guy wasn’t delinquent on his taxes folks. It isn’t like he forgot to pay his taxes and the guys came out.

      No, no, he openly chose to opt out of the system of protection and therefore chose, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, to put his house at risk. Why, oh why are we so afraid to let people make their own personal decisions and then live with them? DO we want to be a free people or not?

      I seriously am not understanding the rationale. This is like someone going to Vegas and getting to crazy one night and blowing his entire life’s savings in one night. Shall we bail him out too? Both just ruined their life. Both openly made the choice to take that risk. In a free society, there will always be those who fail and make bad decisions. If we as a people are to afraid of that notion, then I don’t understand all this anger towards Obama. He’s your guy.

    • Rich

      The guy wasn’t delinquent on his taxes folks. It isn’t like he forgot to pay his taxes and the guys came out.

      No, no, he openly chose to opt out of the system of protection and therefore chose, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, to put his house at risk. Why, oh why are we so afraid to let people make their own personal decisions and then live with them? DO we want to be a free people or not?

      I seriously am not understanding the rationale. This is like someone going to Vegas and getting to crazy one night and blowing his entire life’s savings in one night. Shall we bail him out too? Both just ruined their life. Both openly made the choice to take that risk. In a free society, there will always be those who fail and make bad decisions. If we as a people are to afraid of that notion, then I don’t understand all this anger towards Obama. He’s your guy.

      • Anonymous

        Bingo, excellently put.

  • Just me

    Letting the house burn was simply stupid. Why not set things up so that the fire department could put a lien on the home in case of non-payment at the time of a fire (for those that didn’t pay their fee in advance)? Given that the means to put the fire out were readily available, this whole deal strikes me as spiteful. You know, we’re going to teach them a lesson.

    I cannot imagine the grief that the homeowners are dealing with at this point. Years ago we had our barn burn down. The fire department showed up and saved the other buildings, but the barn was a complete loss as were the animals that we couldn’t get out. It was absolutely devastating. I would not put another person through that unless the resources did not exist to do otherwise.

  • Disgusted American

    Who is the douche making fun of the way the victim talks? Real classy, pal. Beck and his friend both need the hell beat out of them. Not to mention the fire chief, the mayor, every member of the city council that voted for this deplorable policy and everyone else responsible for this major lack of ethics and morals. This is NO DIFFERENT than paying the mafia for “protection”. I am infuriated over this and I’m quite sure I’m not alone in that feeling !

    • Anonymous

      No, you’re not alone, but you are quite unjustified, this is as if someone went about driving their car without insurance, trashed it, and now everyone is demanding he be covered post facto.

      Sorry, thats not how market services work. It’s ok, libertarianism isn’t for everybody.

      • Disgusted American

        This is nothing like driving without insurance and can not be compared to it in that manner.

        And fire protection is not a ‘market service’.

        • Anonymous

          In this case, yes that is exactly how this is. He had the option to pay the fee for the “coverage,” he chose not to, there was a fire and here we are.