[lithos]

Did it ever occur to them to put the fire out, then kindly remind him about his fees?

As shown, it's not like they were completely incapable of reaching and extinguishing a fire at his location.

I'm fairly certain he would've paid after that.

[lowspark86]

Pay to spray fire service might be more common than you think.

There are many areas in Arizona that are not covered by government fire services.

Hence the existence of this company:
Rural/Metro Fire Department - Arizona Operations

and this one covering some more areas:
Establish Your Rural/Metro Fire Service

If you choose to live in an area without fire service, you need to pay for it. Unfortunately fire protection isn't a right. It isn't the same as saving or protecting a life.

At least the private companies have a plan in place on how to bill non subscribers.

[SteveM]

Considering Canada is larger in mass than the US, with a tiny population, and can supply firefighting under taxation, why not the US? I was a firefighter for over 10 years, and we heard about this, and everyone thought it was an urban legend. Firefighters are as American as apple pie, with the flag flying with the rig. I had thought the rumor was an oxymoron of the US Capitalist system since the principal of saving others without demand of payment was socialist, but perhaps I was wrong. From medical to rescue, is suffering something to be cashed in on?

[lithos]

Hell, the RFS (name varies from state to state,) in Australia is 99% volunteer-staffed. A few key people are paid, but mostly, it's just ordinary blokes. And these are the guys that fight the majority of the big bushfires we get every summer - Ash Wednesday, Black Saturday. Most of the firies on the ground were volunteers. Metropolitan firies are paid, but then they've generally got a much more complex job.

[mikemike]

Jeff, I think you should change the name of the thread to "Socialism and the fire department" the thread title is really misleading people:

I had thought the rumor was an oxymoron of the US Capitalist system since the principal of saving others without demand of payment was socialist, but perhaps I was wrong.

smc, this was a socialist fire department. There hands were tied and they were not allowed to fight this fire because bureaucrats implemented a regulation that prevented them to fight fires for rural houses that did not sign up for fire protection.

If it was a capitalist fire company, they would have been able to fight the fire:

At least the private companies have a plan in place on how to bill non subscribers.

[Phil1]

Most all the US is covered by many levels of fire protection from federal, state, county and city departments plus military departments. It seems this isolated local area CHOSE fire protection by an annual fee method. It is a throw back to the early days of fire protection. In NY City, there were commercial fire departments that were paid periodically by the building owners. They had a plaque installed on the buildings noting what private fire company covered them. There was actual warfare between competing companys. Company B would watch a Company A's building burn and not touch it. Most rural and small town departments are at least partially volunteer. In Calif the various departments have awesome cooperation arrangements and catastrophy management operations that seem to work very well. On some of the big grass fires we have had I have seen engines and strike teams from 900 miles away working locally. They would include federal as well as state departments too. We have had Air Force C130s with water drop tankage installed, though I have not seen those in operation. The neat Canadian fixed wing aircraft have worked these fires though they seem to prefer the local small and big choppers with lake water pick up snorkels. The initial response is quicker and they seem to work better in the canyons and give a quicker turn around.

[Leaf Fan]

Very interesting debate, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see that everybody's kept the discussion civil.

A few things come to mind from reading all the responses.

Wheatfield - while I can understand your perspective, it is a bit harsh "you should be ashamed of yourselves". Nobody was in the house, and I'd bet my bottom dollar if someone was, those firefighters would have said "to hell with the rules, someone's dying in there". So it was just a matter of property damage. Look at the other perspective - a City pays for all it's fire infrastructure (trucks, equipment, training, volunteers, paid employees, etc.) then someone outside of that city who does not bear any of the financial burden EXPECTS service just because it's the closest fire department. As has been pointed out, this family knew the situation and expressly declined the service, then they EXPECT the service when they need it. It just doesn't make sense to me. If everybody decided to pay ONLY once they had a fire, how could a government maintain a service when they had no idea of whether they could actually afford the costs.

On a more general note - here in Ontario fire service is provided by the City, so my taxes pay for all the equipment, training, etc. If the fire service responds to a motor vehicle collision on the highway, and the person involved is not a resident of the City, they get the service, but then they also get a bill for the actual cost of that specific response (which could be in the hundreds or thousands of dollars depending on the nature of the service and equipment that responds). That way, the citizens who pay for that infrastructure don't have to bear the burden of providing services to people who don't pay for it. Seems fair to me. I'll acknowledge that it's different than the above original example in that they actually DO get the service first, then pay later. stevewig suggested this system above, and that's what exists in my City.

Another generalization us Canadians like to make about Americans, is that they will rise up in arms against additional taxation (which we in Canada don't do - we just take it up the butt and move on - why? - I'm not sure). So, try and tell all the rural area people that their taxes will be going up to pay for their proportional share of providing the fire service and see the fight that ensues. In Canada our taxes are death by a thousands cuts, and it's that extra 0.1% + 0.1% + 0.1% etc. that ends up costing us half our yearly income in taxes. Try and do that in the US. BUT - the flip side of not having all those incremental taxes on top of taxes is, that once in a while - your house burns down.

Bottom line is that nobody was hurt, which is the best outcome of a string of dumb decisions by the family.

[Nesster]

Mike, I think you still have the socialist/capitalist thing backward.

You say this is socialist since it is a bureaucratic rule preventing the fire company from putting out a non-subcribed fire. And if they were capitalist, they would have done so because they have a (bureaucratic) means to bill the $75.

Now, let's take a dyed in the wool capitalist operating, say, a ferry service across the Hudson river. Behaving capitalistically, and able to charge for tickets, whether monthly or per ride, would our Commodore use this ability to allow free passage? No way. And, he takes the payment before the ride, not after.

Is our Commodore bound by rules that allow him to save a life, say a capsized boat, without charge? Yes.

The town was acting entirely capitalistically, on the principle of no pay no ride. Should a life been at stake, they would have saved the person.

---

What I find a little surprising is howcome nobody's yet blamed this on Liberals: the fire department was inhibited because of liability and lawsuit if they went ahead to douse the fire. These Democrat Liberal Tort Lawyers would have been all over it.

You all are getting slow here...

[mikemike]

Mike, I think you still have the socialist/capitalist thing backward.

A defining characteristic of capitalism vs. socialism is private ownership and decision making vs. public ownership and decision making. This was publicly owned and therefore socialist.

---------- Post added 10-07-10 at 08:46 AM ----------

If you want an example of capitalist response to a disaster vs. socialist response to a disaster look at Wal-Mart vs. FEMA before during and after Katrina.

Wal-Mart at Forefront of Hurricane Relief - washingtonpost.com

[jeffkrol]

A defining characteristic of capitalism vs. socialism is private ownership and decision making vs. public ownership and decision making. This was publicly owned and therefore socialist.

---------- Post added 10-07-10 at 08:46 AM ----------

If you want an example of capitalist response to a disaster vs. socialist response to a disaster look at Wal-Mart vs. FEMA before during and after Katrina.

Wal-Mart at Forefront of Hurricane Relief - washingtonpost.com

An economic goal of socialism is to more effectively satisfy demand by producing utility directly without being burdened by private property relations in the means of production and the need to generate profit, which socialists generally view as being remnants of a defunct mode of production and an impediment to contemporary productive capabilities.

Various differing definitions of what constitutes a socialist economy exist, from those that define it as an entirely post-market and moneyless economy, to those that simply define it as publicly-owned and cooperative enterprises in a mixed-market or free-market economy.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is no "pay to play" scenario anywhere in pure socialism......... your wrong.
I do understand your point that as a "capitalist" fire dept they MAY HAVE allowed an after the fact fee, unlike a beauracratic "hand tie" BUT that is NOT a socialist trend contrary to the many that really have no idea what socialism truely encompasses...
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Knock yourself out.......
Some facts to remember....
according to one reference the "tax burden" on the "city folk" would be in the pennies and would then seamlessly cover the "rural folk", but who wants to spend a nickle to protect your rural cousins...... taken another way the city funds collected by each person may be much cheaper then the gouging of their rural neighbors.... the "token" $75 seems meaningless in any event and arises probably from the goood old insurance cost benefit analysis..
second, they allowed 3 dogs and a cat to be killed... that alone to some is disgraceful...

[mikemike]

There is no "pay to play" scenario anywhere in pure socialism......... your wrong.

Its hard to hit a moving target. So what you are advocating is closer to communism?

I think this is the more colloquial definition is the second part of that.

to those that simply define it as publicly-owned and cooperative enterprises in a mixed-market or free-market economy

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses.

There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no disputing that this is a publicly organized, funded, and directed fire company.
The policy of charging a fee to rural users was a decision made by the citizens and the board of the fire department.
The policy of not responding to rural fires at non-subscribers' residents was upheld through prior precedent.

So this might not be JeffKrol's socialist fire department but it is certainly not a capitalist fire company and it does fit into the most common variation of real world socialism.

[deadwolfbones]

Did it ever occur to them to put the fire out, then kindly remind him about his fees?

As shown, it's not like they were completely incapable of reaching and extinguishing a fire at his location.

I'm fairly certain he would've paid after that.

According to some articles, he offered to pay them when they got there but they wouldn't take the money. The rationale being (I assume) that if everyone waited to pay the fee until their house was on fire, the fire department would never have any funding.

[lithos]

I think "mercenary" is the term we're all groping for here, like a sixteen-year-boy in a mosh pit.

It denotes a much more malignant, selfish and mean-spirited approach to buying and selling, to the detriment of wider society.

Also, "arsehattery" would probably be apt, too.

[jeffkrol]

Its hard to hit a moving target. So what you are advocating is closer to communism?

I think this is the more colloquial definition is the second part of that.



Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So this might not be JeffKrol's socialist fire department but it is certainly not a capitalist fire company and it does fit into the most common variation of real world socialism.

There is no disputing that this is a (privately held corp and directed by a CEO)publicly organized, funded, and directed fire company.
The policy of charging a fee to rural users was a decision made by the (board of directors)citizens and the board of the fire department.
The policy of not responding to rural fires at non-subscribers' residents (was withing the corporate guidlelines, fees must be paid in advance or no service)was upheld through prior precedent.
It FITs more within the constrants of capitalism then socialism....... matter of fact, historically it reeks of capitalism....
Socialism would have put out the fire "for the good of the people" INCLUDING his neighbor who in this capitalistic approach to service "got his"....
There is no distinction from one to many except in the "common good"... A house burning uncontrolled would never be listed as "Common good".....
That's not MY socialism, it just is.

[Nesster]

The fact that a municipality owns the company does not make it a socialist company - the town after all is behaving in a Libertarian manner, maximizing the liberty of citizens and running the services in a pay for play manner for those who chose to live outside city limits.

If through some logic this is still socialism, then Libertarians are socialists too.