Home burns while firefighters watch, again

[Acala]

+1 I think it would have been reasonable to just put out the fire and send a bill to the homeowner afterward. Similar to emergency care clinics. It would be much higher than it would have been if they'd paid the fee, but still a better deal than a total loss.

Funny thing about bills, especially big, unexpected bills, is that lots of people don't pay them. And there are no easy ways to get people to pay unsecured debts when they don't care about their credit rating.

The answer is, as always, freedom. Let private business figure it out. Or volunteers.

 

[juleswin]

Here is how I see this issue.. Both sides are right..In a free market if they did not pay then there house should burn, but, and here is the rub in a free market the home owners would have had another place to call to see if they were willing to put out the fire for a fee. Since the government has a monopoly on fire departments I don't think that you can just say if they don't pay there house should burn to the ground. Don't you think in a free market there would be a company that filled this void and would be glad to put out fires for a large fee if the home owner had not paid the fee. Think of it like car insurance. Maybe I did not have any and I wrecked my car but there are many many companies out there ready to fix my car but I just pay a lot more by not having the car already insured. So in this case I dont think they should have let the house burn to the ground.

I just going to comment on this fairy tale idea of the free market going around squashing every and all monopolies where ever they pop out. I grew up in a big city in Nigeria. In that city my mom had essentially what would be considered a monopoly in cake making and decoration. Nobody ever documented her actually market share but I can guess that she controlled up to 90% of the whole market. She made cakes for virtually every wedding ceremony that used a commercial bakery for their cakes, and the same goes for birthday cakes. She made cakes for all price ranges, big and small, all varieties and she undercut all her competitors. She was able to do this for over 10 yrs without any real treat to her dominance and she did this without any govt regulation, assistance/contracts, this was in fact a monopoly occuring in a free market system (cake making).

She was able to do this because her profit margins were very little, she was awfully good at it and people liked her. I am saying this because this same scenario can easily occur with a free market fire dept., where one good low profit margin shop comes in and drowns out everybody else. This idea that there is always going to be a viable 2nd option in a free market is not necessarily true especially for small towns like the one in question.

 

[jmdrake]

Some places do allow the "pay as you go" option, others don't.

Those that don't have this option probably figure that anyone who won't pony up $75 in the first place isn't a very good bet to come through on a heat of the moment "promise" to pay $2,000 later. Since these rural houses are outside the city, the city would have no way of getting the money. Essentially, the city would be floating an unsecured loan of $2,000 to people to cheap or too poor to afford a $75 insurance fee. That's pretty risky.

The obvious solution is PAY THE DAMNED INSURANCE FEE OR DON'T BITCH AND MOAN WHEN YOUR HOUSE BURNS DOWN!

So your saying that city lawyers are too stupid to put a lien on someone's property? If you own anyone money that person can take you to court and seek a judgement. If that judgement is granted then that person can put a lien on your property. The fact that the property is outside the jurisdiction of the city is irrelevant. They could file the lawsuit in county or state court.

This is an example of how in someways half-baked libertarianism is worse than statism. In a truly voluntary society there wouldn't be a monopoly on fire service. Multiple companies (none backed by any government) would compete to provide the service. Some would refuse service to anyone who didn't prepay. Some would take future payment and secure that payment with a property lien. Some would do a mix. The other place were half-baked libertarianism is worse that statism is the current incarnation of "private prisons". Companies like CCR lobby for more laws with stiffer penalties because they have a vested interest in locking people up. There are libertarian ways to de-tangle both of these problems, but the answer is not to declare a feces-sandwich to be a quarter-pounder with cheese just because it has the look and feel of "smaller government".

 

[jmdrake]

Calling the fire department is almost as bad as calling the cops.

Better to stop it and take care of it yourself than to wait around.

+rep

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Funny thing about bills, especially big, unexpected bills, is that lots of people don't pay them. And there are no easy ways to get people to pay unsecured debts when they don't care about their credit rating.

The answer is, as always, freedom. Let private business figure it out. Or volunteers.

Yeah. I meant to imply that private businesses should figure it out. There's an emergency care clinic in my neighborhood. People get emergency care there, and there are apparently not many bill-skippers, because they're still in business after all these years. I dunno if that business model would work for firefighter services-just throwing it out there for consideration.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This house paid property tax. For that they get?????

Some of you folks are blindly pathetic with your rhetorical stances. The last folks I would want in a TEOTWAWKI situation within ten miles of my camp. Keep prancing about like privileged little princes in fancy costumes plastered with labels. One day your immoral money centered philosophy will rear up and bite yer ass like a hungry dragon. Seen it before. Happens all the time..etc..

Rev9

Their philosophy isn't money-centered, though. They do look at the importance of economic logic, but recognize the importance of voluntary relationships. (IOW, the money aspect is a just a real-world practical matter) As you can see, I don't agree with a lot of people here on this particular issue, though.

 

[jmdrake]

Then I am sure you also support food stamps, free medical, and other welfare as well.

I am shocked and surprised that you of all people on this forum are for this.

I'm shocked and surprised that you of all people on this forum do not understand the difference between a moral duty and a legal one. Are you aware of the famous story of a woman in New York City who was brutally stabbed to death over a period of several hours and nobody did anything to help? When one neighbor turned on the lights for a bit the killer stop. But when the neighbor turned the lights back off he continued again and finished the woman off. None of those people had a legal obligation under U.S. law or libertarian philosophy. They had a right to ignore her pleas. That doesn't mean what they did was right.

 

[juleswin]

So your saying that city lawyers are too stupid to put a lien on someone's property? If you own anyone money that person can take you to court and seek a judgement. If that judgement is granted then that person can put a lien on your property. The fact that the property is outside the jurisdiction of the city is irrelevant. They could file the lawsuit in county or state court.

This is an example of how in someways half-baked libertarianism is worse than statism. In a truly voluntary society there wouldn't be a monopoly on fire service. Multiple companies (none backed by any government) would compete to provide the service. Some would refuse service to anyone who didn't prepay. Some would take future payment and secure that payment with a property lien. Some would do a mix. The other place were half-baked libertarianism is worse that statism is the current incarnation of "private prisons". Companies like CCR lobby for more laws with stiffer penalties because they have a vested interest in locking people up. There are libertarian ways to de-tangle both of these problems, but the answer is not to declare a feces-sandwich to be a quarter-pounder with cheese just because it has the look and feel of "smaller government".

Because we all know that putting a lien on a fire dmged property or seizing whats left off a citizen whose house has just been destroyed makes for an even better public image. And also with time senstive problems like a raging fire, we all know that when that time comes, there will be ample time to shop around between all the available fire depts in the area to find which fire dept is willing to risk life and treasure for a fool who could not e arsed to pay out $75 up until less than 30 days before the year is over and after his house was laready on fire

Some people need get real and understand how the world really works

 

[jmdrake]

Because we all know that putting a lien on a fire dmged property or seizing whats left off a citizen whose house has just been destroyed makes for an even better public image. And also with time senstive problems like a raging fire, we all know that when that time comes, there will be ample time to shop around between all the available fire depts in the area to find which fire dept is willing to risk life and treasure for a fool who could not e arsed to pay out $75 up until less than 30 days before the year is over and after his house was laready on fire

Some people need get real and understand how the world really works

That's all you care about? Public image? As for having to "shop around" that's not a problem. In areas with private ambulance services there have been cases of competing services showing up at the same accident. Nobody had to "shop" for them. And when you put a lien on property it is typically not exercised until the property is or changes hands. So the citizen in question could pay the lien off early to preserve his equity or not worry about it and just get less money when his property is sold. And if the firefighting company didn't want to hold onto a bunch of liens it could sell its interest in those properties. You are right about one thing. Some people do need to get real and learn how the world really works. When you're ready to learn I can send you some information.

 

[Revolution9]

Because we all know that putting a lien on a fire dmged property or seizing whats left off a citizen whose house has just been destroyed makes for an even better public image. And also with time senstive problems like a raging fire, we all know that when that time comes, there will be ample time to shop around between all the available fire depts in the area to find which fire dept is willing to risk life and treasure for a fool who could not e arsed to pay out $75 up until less than 30 days before the year is over and after his house was laready on fire

Some people need get real and understand how the world really works

For some rural folks that 75 bucks is the difference between eating and not and it has nothing to do with them being lazy.

The property is usually worth more than the house. The belongings are priceless.

Rev9

 

[Acala]

So your saying that city lawyers are too stupid to put a lien on someone's property? If you own anyone money that person can take you to court and seek a judgement. If that judgement is granted then that person can put a lien on your property. The fact that the property is outside the jurisdiction of the city is irrelevant. They could file the lawsuit in county or state court.

This is an example of how in someways half-baked libertarianism is worse than statism. In a truly voluntary society there wouldn't be a monopoly on fire service. Multiple companies (none backed by any government) would compete to provide the service. Some would refuse service to anyone who didn't prepay. Some would take future payment and secure that payment with a property lien. Some would do a mix. The other place were half-baked libertarianism is worse that statism is the current incarnation of "private prisons". Companies like CCR lobby for more laws with stiffer penalties because they have a vested interest in locking people up. There are libertarian ways to de-tangle both of these problems, but the answer is not to declare a feces-sandwich to be a quarter-pounder with cheese just because it has the look and feel of "smaller government".

Have you ever actually done any debt-collection work in the absence of a security agreement?

 

[jmdrake]

Have you ever actually done any debt-collection work in the absence of a security agreement?

A lien is itself security.

 

[Acala]

A lien is itself security.

A lien claimed after the fact isn't made pursuant to an agreement.

As a practicing municipal lawyer I can tell you that a lien, if you can get one, ain't worth squat for collecting debts. So if your business plan for fire supression involves executing on liens as a way of paying the bills it ain't gonna work.

 

[juleswin]

That's all you care about? Public image? As for having to "shop around" that's not a problem. In areas with private ambulance services there have been cases of competing services showing up at the same accident. Nobody had to "shop" for them. And when you put a lien on property it is typically not exercised until the property is or changes hands. So the citizen in question could pay the lien off early to preserve his equity or not worry about it and just get less money when his property is sold. And if the firefighting company didn't want to hold onto a bunch of liens it could sell its interest in those properties. You are right about one thing. Some people do need to get real and learn how the world really works. When you're ready to learn I can send you some information.

Nice try, you use a healthcare sector as an example of free market in the US? everybody know that the US govt using various programs has distorted the US healthcare market but pumping untold amounts of dollars into it. I bet if you looked deeper into it, those ambulance service have benefited from the stimuls from the US govt or they are reinbursed by the govt or insurance company if the client doesnt.

Ron Paul talks about the moral hazards brought about by our govt bailout and this moral hazards exist too in the free market. My guess is fire stations in the free market would be setup to make money too and wouldn't see it in their best interest to create a moral hazard in its customer base.

 

[jmdrake]

A lien claimed after the fact isn't made pursuant to an agreement.

Except that in this case there would be an initial agreement.

As a practicing municipal lawyer I can tell you that a lien, if you can get one, ain't worth squat for collecting debts. So if your business plan for fire supression involves executing on liens as a way of paying the bills it ain't gonna work.

I'm a practicing attorney as well. Maybe they work different in your state, but liens are worthwhile in mine. And if they don't work well enough then change the law. The bottom line is there are judgements made against and debts collected from people all of the time. If debt can't be collected than no business plan based on credit is going to work. And obviously that's not true.

 

[jmdrake]

Nice try, you use a healthcare sector as an example of free market in the US? everybody know that the US govt using various programs has distorted the US healthcare market but pumping untold amounts of dollars into it. I bet if you looked deeper into it, those ambulance service have benefited from the stimuls from the US govt or they are reinbursed by the govt or insurance company if the client doesnt.

So you think that no free market emergency service can actually work? Interesting. Like I said, half-baked libertarianism is worse in many respects than statism.

Ron Paul talks about the moral hazards brought about by our govt bailout and this moral hazards exist too in the free market. My guess is fire stations in the free market would be setup to make money too and wouldn't see it in their best interest to create a moral hazard in its customer base.

Allowing people to choose whether to pay a little up front or a lot later is not a moral hazard. If you think it is then you don't understand the meaning of the phrase. People insure against the risk of having to make a bigger payout later. But some people choose to self insure. They aren't engaged in "moral hazard" when they do that.

 

[jasonxe]

do they get tax payer money or are private?

 

[Acala]

Except that in this case there would be an initial agreement..

You mean a agreement drawn up in front of the burning house? Hahahahahaha! Good luck with that.

I'm a practicing attorney as well. Maybe they work different in your state, but liens are worthwhile in mine. And if they don't work well enough then change the law. The bottom line is there are judgements made against and debts collected from people all of the time. If debt can't be collected than no business plan based on credit is going to work. And obviously that's not true.

First liens for large sums of money are useful. But that isn't what you are suggesting here. This lien would be subordinant to existing liens on a now-damaged piece of property AND for an amount of money less than what an attorney would charge to execute on the lien. If you think you are going to make that work I believe you are mistaken.

 

[Melissa]

Maybe there would be no 2nd choice but I am betting if it was a private company they would say to the homeowner..hey you did not pay the 75 will you pay .Xamount right now and we will put out the fire and if you say that maybe they can't get the money fast enough well I am betting people would call in all favors to get the money like they do for bail and other emergencies...for instance...there is a medical clinic here that will not see you unless you pay up front or they take your insurance now because hospitals are free how can these medical offices stay in business...because the cost is cheaper for one visit then maybe it is for insurance every month. I am not saying there will always be a 2nd choice but right now with government monopoly on fire departments we can't even try for a 2nd choice and I really think the private market would not let the house burn to the ground without trying to at least offer a way to save the home...may be expensive but still is your choice.

I just going to comment on this fairy tale idea of the free market going around squashing every and all monopolies where ever they pop out. I grew up in a big city in Nigeria. In that city my mom had essentially what would be considered a monopoly in cake making and decoration. Nobody ever documented her actually market share but I can guess that she controlled up to 90% of the whole market. She made cakes for virtually every wedding ceremony that used a commercial bakery for their cakes, and the same goes for birthday cakes. She made cakes for all price ranges, big and small, all varieties and she undercut all her competitors. She was able to do this for over 10 yrs without any real treat to her dominance and she did this without any govt regulation, assistance/contracts, this was in fact a monopoly occuring in a free market system (cake making).

She was able to do this because her profit margins were very little, she was awfully good at it and people liked her. I am saying this because this same scenario can easily occur with a free market fire dept., where one good low profit margin shop comes in and drowns out everybody else. This idea that there is always going to be a viable 2nd option in a free market is not necessarily true especially for small towns like the one in question.

 

[Acala]

Maybe there would be no 2nd choice but I am betting if it was a private company they would say to the homeowner..hey you did not pay the 75 will you pay .Xamount right now and we will put out the fire and if you say that maybe they can't get the money fast enough well I am betting people would call in all favors to get the money like they do for bail and other emergencies...for instance...there is a medical clinic here that will not see you unless you pay up front or they take your insurance now because hospitals are free how can these medical offices stay in business...because the cost is cheaper for one visit then maybe it is for insurance every month. I am not saying there will always be a 2nd choice but right now with government monopoly on fire departments we can't even try for a 2nd choice and I really think the private market would not let the house burn to the ground without trying to at least offer a way to save the home...may be expensive but still is your choice.

I think most of us would agree that the answer, as usual, is to get government out of it and let the ingenuity of free people decide how to solve the problem.