Quasi-Libertarianism in Action:

Gene Cranick of rural Obion County in Tennesee had the opportunity to pay $75 per year for fire department coverage from the nearby city of South Fulton. He was mailed a letter every year at renewal time, and even got a follow-up phone call when he didn't send in his $75 by the due date. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong" he says. Now he and many others are upset that the FD let his house burn to the ground. He even says he offered to pay the full costs of putting out the fire if the FD would come out, but was told it was too late.


One commenter says "I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?" (They'd responded to the scene to prevent the fire from spreading to his fee-paying neighbor's house)

To which I'd respond: How is a verbal agreement to pay while your house is burning "a reasonable expectation to be compensated"? Who WOULDN'T say they were going to pay while watching their house burn?! If Mr. Cranick could afford to pay the thousands it would have cost to save his house, why couldn't he come up with a measly $75 per year? If, on the other hand, he really thought it was a voluntary donation every year, (which is what one would assume from his statement - that is, if he isn't lying) why does the FD have a moral obligation to save his house when the guy is obviously not very generous himself?

Okay, so you trot out the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated, not as they have treated you in the past. So, I'm on that fire department, and now I've got a choice: take money from thousands of taxpayers and fee-payers in order to save one man some money, or let that one man suffer the monetary consequenses of his actions so I don't drive up everyone else's costs. I'd let his house burn too. Besides, the guy also had the opportunity to buy house/property insurance, which would cover his losses even if I let it burn to the ground. (The articles I've found don't discuss this issue so he might not have done that either.) This doesn't even take into account the possibility that hundreds more rural residents might decide to free-load on the taxpaying city dwellers if the FD had gone ahead and saved Mr. Cranick's house.

The only way I'd say that the FD had any obligation to do anything would be if human lives were at stake. Human life always takes precedence over monetary loss, even if it means taking that money from others. However, that was not the case in this instance. Mr. Cranick had the chance to protect himself, and he chose to take the risk of not signing up. He has no one to blame but himself, and no one should try to place blame on the FD or anyone else. End of story.

Incidentally, a true free-market FD probably would have put out the fire and charged him. Why? Because they'd sue for the money if he couldn't pay up. A government agency, as this FD was, doesn't want the hassle of suing.