Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think that allowing someone's house to burn down for the lack of a 75 dollar fee is a stupid one. I think allowing people to "opt in" to fire department services is a stupid one. And I think that lives don't come down to cost/benefit analysis answers (which ignores the fact that the guy didn't actually make the "right" analysis nor did his local government.)

Well, we may have found our disagreement. Let's try this:

If someone offers you $400 if you win a coinflip, but you lose $100, a cost/benefit analysis says you should always take the flip, right?

And losing doesn't mean you made the wrong decision - it just means you hit the short side.

Obviously, risk of ruin (ROR) issues do factor in, but to pretend that this is a $75 issue is ludicrous. It's a $75/year/house issue - and instead of looking at this from a fanciful viewpoint, let's look at it from a strict economic viewpoint, based upon incentives: there's no incentive to pay the fee (which is MUCH more than $75/incident, again as I pointed out before) if you receive benefits at the end. This is NOT an acknowledgment that you should charge - just that charging forces the behavior you're supporting.

In low-risk scenarios, it makes perfect sense to allow people to "opt in" - in fact, it makes so much sense that governmental organizations like the NFIP do the exact same thing. Societal issues aren't local, they're global.

Not sure how every police issue is a public issue yet essentially no fire department issue in a rural setting is.

The very point of law is that your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another, right? Criminal acts generally have a victim, after all - and rural fires will generally only affect one property. Even in this "extreme" case, it didn't burn down two houses.

And yes, it's illegal to starve your children. Stupid comparison.

But the mechanism that forces them to starve isn't illegal. Parental issues are wholly unrelated - as is your ridiculous assertion that "spreading the cost" is an issue since the $75 should do that already.

Similarly, it's illegal to live under a bridge with your kids, but the things that put you there aren't (and shouldn't be) illegal.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, we may have found our disagreement. Let's try this:

If someone offers you $400 if you win a coinflip, but you lose $100, a cost/benefit analysis says you should always take the flip, right?

And losing doesn't mean you made the wrong decision - it just means you hit the short side.

Obviously, risk of ruin (ROR) issues do factor in, but to pretend that this is a $75 issue is ludicrous. It's a $75/year/house issue - and instead of looking at this from a fanciful viewpoint, let's look at it from a strict economic viewpoint, based upon incentives: there's no incentive to pay the fee (which is MUCH more than $75/incident, again as I pointed out before).

In low-risk scenarios, it makes perfect sense to allow people to "opt in" - in fact, it makes so much sense that governmental organizations like the NFIP do the exact same thing. Societal issues aren't local, they're global.

The incentive to pay the fee is not to lose your house or your life to a fire. A rural house is not inherently more flame retardant than an urban one. There are no fire plains like there are flood plains and a coin flip is not in any way comparable unless coming up tails means losing everything you own.

Your coin flip scenario is really more like "spend 75 a year and no matter whether its heads or tails someone will at least make the effort to help you" vs. "lose everything that you own including possibly your life if you flip tails 6 times in a row, but that's really unlikely so you're probably safe, right?" There is no reasonable cost/benefit analysis present.

Economists may try but life does not work like a spreadsheet.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The incentive to pay the fee is not to lose your house or your life to a fire. A rural house is not inherently more flame retardant than an urban one. There are no fire plains like there are flood plains and a coin flip is not in any way comparable unless coming up tails means losing everything you own.

Your coin flip scenario is really more like "spend 75 a year and no matter whether its heads or tails someone will at least make the effort to help you" vs. "lose everything that you own including possibly your life if you flip tails 6 times in a row, but that's really unlikely so you're probably safe, right?" There is no reasonable cost/benefit analysis present.

Economists may try but life does not work like a spreadsheet.

I don't mean to patronize, but . . . you really can't see how differing odds can and should influence public policy? I'm kind of confused here - you're not willing at all to look at the other side here?

Do you own earthquake insurance? If you're anywhere near the Midwest (EDIT: I thought you lived in the region), the risk is minuscule but the risk of ruin is huge. You're apparently arguing that any massive ROR is something people should be forced to mitigate - so should we have mandatory earthquake insurance?

Also, fire is BETTER than flood plains, and not worse, as far as comparison - we all have the SAME fire exposure, minus (essentially) "smoking" or "making fireworks."

I guess I'm just confused why you're so intractable here. (REMOVED PERSONAL COMMENTARY THAT MAY/MAY NOT BE PATRONIZING)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I like you a lot, you seem like a bright and well-meaning person . . . but you really can't see how differing odds can and should influence public policy? I'm kind of confused here - you're not willing at all to look at the other side here?

Do you own earthquake insurance? If you're anywhere near the Midwest, the risk is minuscule but the risk of ruin huge. You're apparently arguing that any massive ROR is something people should be forced to mitigate - so should we have mandatory earthquake insurance?

Also, fire is BETTER than flood plains, and not worse, as far as comparison - we all have the SAME fire exposure, minus (essentially) "smoking" or "making fireworks."

I guess I'm just confused why you're so intractable here.

I don't own a house, but I believe that a surprising number of people are covered for earthquakes in the midwest because, you know, we had a 5.0 a few years ago and the New Madrid fault is right here.

When it comes to policy, yes, these things should be, for better or worse, considered. However from a policy standpoint, making a mandatory fee (and yes less than 75 makes sense since more people would be bought into it, unless this was the one lone holdout) does not cost more as long as you're already collecting some form of taxes from the residents. So I see no benefit to "society" by having the fee be optional. I see no benefit to the individual to be able to opt out either. If it were 2k a year, talk to me again.


It's not just that I dislike the weighing of lives as if they were coins on a scale, it's that no matter how you weigh them I see no way that not paying for a fire department is a benefit. None. I don't see a single argument here in this thread that is convincing. That's why I'm not moving on it, because I see absolutely no reason to move.

And if rural communities are equally at risk for fire- flammable materials, tanks of fertilizer, brush/prairie/forest fires, tractor or other vehicle fires, lightning, random electrical shorts, arson, whatever the case may be - it makes no sense to me to have differing policies towards fire protection purely on the grounds of location. (Obviously I don't know the statistics, but fire is more like a tornado than an earthquake as far as its frequency and effects. It's far more random and not as widely devastating as floods or earthquakes. However cross comparing disasters really isn't effective or relevant here) The city is willing to and capable of provide service to the county residents. From there it's purely about money. Which means it's doable and both stupid and irresponsible not to manage.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And if rural communities are equally at risk for fire- flammable materials, tanks of fertilizer, brush/prairie/forest fires, tractor or other vehicle fires, lightning, random electrical shorts, arson, whatever the case may be - it makes no sense to me to have differing policies towards fire protection purely on the grounds of location. (Obviously I don't know the statistics, but fire is more like a tornado than an earthquake as far as its frequency and effects. It's far more random and not as widely devastating as floods or earthquakes. However cross comparing disasters really isn't effective or relevant here) The city is willing to and capable of provide service to the county residents. From there it's purely about money. Which means it's doable and both stupid and irresponsible not to manage.

If you're going to write something off as "purely about money" then we'll clearly never find a common ground - remember that it was originally life, liberty and pursuit of property. Money matters - it isn't a minor speed bump, it's an actual protected right for Americans.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If you're going to write something off as "purely about money" then we'll clearly never find a common ground - remember that it was originally life, liberty and pursuit of property. Money matters - it isn't a minor speed bump, it's an actual protected right for Americans.

Actually it's life liberty and property, not pursuit of. And it was an English concept that actually never made it into the Declaration.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Actually it's life liberty and property, not pursuit of. And it was an English concept that actually never made it into the Declaration.

... because large swaths of Americans couldn't own property, but those property guarantees still made themselves into law for property owners, right?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If you're going to write something off as "purely about money" then we'll clearly never find a common ground - remember that it was originally life, liberty and pursuit of property. Money matters - it isn't a minor speed bump, it's an actual protected right for Americans.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness*. And they're in the declaration, not the constitution.

If it is acceptable to infringe on people's "rights" to have their houses burn down, or something, in the city, then it is the same in the country. Hence the comparisons of the two. If it is unacceptable, well, bring the pitchforks, but leave the torches at home, and storm city hall.

If it is acceptable in the country and doable in the country and not being done then odds are the issue is about money.

No where did I write the whole thing off as "just about money." I was referring to the municipal provider. As noted in that paragraph.

I'm admittedly in a pissy mood tonight, but seriously I'd prefer it if people read my entire posts before mischaracterizing my point. Disagree all you like, but do so honestly.


*Can't undo the edits of Jefferson and Franklin, even if they lifted the phrasing from Virginia.

[KSig RC]

I missed all of this in the cross-posting, which might be part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If it is acceptable to infringe on people's "rights" to have their houses burn down, or something, in the city, then it is the same in the country. Hence the comparisons of the two. If it is unacceptable, well, bring the pitchforks, but leave the torches at home, and storm city hall.

This is demonstrably false - first, because your language is unnecessarily inflammatory (if this is a "rights" issue, it's not so in the way you've described here), and second, because situational or temporal issues often dictate differences in how rights are applied.

If it is acceptable in the country and doable in the country and not being done then odds are the issue is about money.

I address this above - but "money" isn't some fungible topic. It isn't an unlimited well. And it isn't anything that is guaranteed.

No where did I write the whole thing off as "just about money." I was referring to the municipal provider. As noted in that paragraph.

Note this is kind of at odds with the above.

And there is no municipal provider - at least none directly responsible. This is completely beyond what would be expected. This changes the calculus.

I'm admittedly in a pissy mood tonight, but seriously I'd prefer it if people read my entire posts before mischaracterizing my point. Disagree all you like, but do so honestly.

That's fair, and I didn't mean to mischaracterize - I promise it wasn't intentionally taking points out of context or anything else.