If your house catches fire in our village, it will burn down.

[Skidmore]

We live in an unincorporated village, one of a group of seven, in a very rural community. The nearest incorporated population centeres are 20 miles away in any given direction. Our fire department is a volunteer one entirely. They all have other jobs either farming or in one of those aforementioned population centers. If your house or business catches on fire during work hours, they must all assemble at the firestation to pick up their equipment before they can get to a fire. Because of this rural volunteer system, we pay higher premiums on our house insurance. I daresay this is the story of much of America's rural communities. This is a statement of fact not a statement supporting the actions of that fire department who refused to out that house fire after getting there. Just wanted to point out that all infrastructure is not equal.

[droidamus2]

1. Yes it is different

I get your point I live in a small rural community in Vermont and our fire department is all volunteer. When I first moved he I (from Sacramento, CA) was surprised at how many home fires ended up in the home being totally destroyed. At first I figured it was just because these were old farm houses, dry as a bone and they just went up quick. After awhile I realized that, unlike in towns and cities, you don't have a fully manned fire department around every corner. I guess it is the price of living away from population centers that you take your chances. Still firefighters should fight fires damn the stupid fee.

[doc03]

2. If someone burned up it a fire while the FD refused to

fight the fire couldn't they be charged with a some kind of crime or even for the property damage?

[droidamus2]

4. If not

I would support locations (cities, counties, states, etc) passing that kind of law. Law enforcement, fire fighting and those kinds of services should be considered public services even when the people manning them are volunteers. It should not be up to them whether they fight a fire or not. Obviously they must have the leeway of determining how to fight a particular fire but that should not include refusal to become involved because of some stupid fee.

[TheMadMonk]

3. You are correct. But since the stink is over them being there and failing to act...

...this how we have to argue it.

Here's another way to look at why they were ORDERED not to fight that fire.

• The gent in question recieves the service despite his non-paymennt of fees.
  
• Some or all of his neighbours decide not to pay either, and yet they still believe the service should and will come. And perhaps for a while it does.
  
• Eventually though, those people in another State entirely who are actually paying to provide this service get jack of it and withdraw the service altogether.
  
• Whether or not it was greed of forgetfulness which led to the non-payment at the core of this discussion, one man not paying but benefitting anyway can all too easily lead to everyone losing out. In a nation where all too often greed IS seen as a virtue, all too easily becomes all too likely.

Our way of dealing with misuse of our fire services here in Australia is to put out fires, and charge a huge fee for false callouts. Pets still extracted from trees and drainpipes free of charge, unless of course you are stupid enough to call it in as an instant response emergency via triple zero. In most of the civilised world that's how it works.

Your nation chose to cater to individualism to the degree that you can pick and choose which "essential services" you will pay for and which you will not. You are allowed at least the illusion of directing where your personal taxes will be spent. However, since most tax payments are not so earmarked, general revenue can easily be shuffled to suit political desires and your tax protest is entirely symbolic.

Your founders chose to make LAW of a truism. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." There isn't, one way or another someone always pays. Your nation chose to legislate that the payer be the beneficiary and that under all but a few closely defined circumstance, those offering the benefit has an absolute right to demand payment up front and even in the case of essential (it must be provided in that moment (and that moment alone) to be of benefit) services, elect not to provide that service now and seek redress later. As it is in most of the civilised world, specifically the Britain and Europe your forebears escaped.

You ran away from Feudalism and recreated it in your own land, all in the name of ultimate freedom. Those who stayed behind overcame Feudalism, not by turning their back on it, but by taking it over from the bottom up. Feudalism did always provided certain minimum benefits to the lowliest of those who lived under it and it was the lord who paid from his own pocket to provide those benefits. It was also the lord who, provided he met his own feudal obligations to HIS lord, got to set the minimum to the minimum benefit.

In Britain/Europe, (and in a different (and far less efficient) way in the Communist nations) The People replaced their overlords with a State, which, to a greater or lesser degree and by varying means, they themselves controlled, and ensured provided them with sufficient automatic benefit and protection that the degree to which any individual may be exploited is considerably curtailed.

Today that means, in most parts of the "civilised world", that 40 hrs of labour in any industry cannot provide less than a set minimum "living wage" and that the State will always make up a certain amount of ANY shortfall and always provide a minimum "subsistance subsidy". We simply do not allow for situations where for the bottom of the ladder it can take 40hrs to provide a roof, another 40 to cover health expenses and finally a third job to obtain physical sustenance for you and yours.

There's another little benefit in a decent minimum wage. By seting a reasonable minimum "living wage" our nations also set a floor to their tax revenues.