Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Last week, firefighters in rural Tennessee stood by and let a man’s house burn to the ground because the homeowner had neglected to pay the $75 fee for opt-in fire emergency service.
Homeowner Gene Cranick and his family lost all their possessions as well as their three pets in the blaze. Though firefighters were at the scene to battle the fire on neighboring property, they refused to put out the fire on the Cranicks' property. The mayor of the South Fulton (which is the closest city to the Cranick’s rural home) cited moral hazard as the reason why firefighters could not help the man once the fire had already begun:
"Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker….[He] said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.
Daniel Foster has a great discussion about the story over at The Corner. “This is bad for the libertarians,” Foster 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?
…I’m a conservative with fairly libertarian leanings, but this is a kind of government for which I would not sign up.
The pressing questions: What should the firefighters have done in this scenario? Is this story evidence of the inherent failures of libertarianism? And lastly, for which type of services is opt-in government appropriate?
- Comment (181)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Jaydee the problem with your 3rd scenario of being allowed to pay a higher amount if your house catches fire is that fires are rare. Most people will take that bet and not pay the $75. Then the fire department is underfunded and can't protect anyone.
Don't forget the 4th scenario - the homeowner gets his bill and says "I didn't call you and ask you to put the fire out. I don't owe you a dime. Sue me."
You think that won't be the norm?
Sep '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
A basic question regarding how to organize a society is the problem of free riders like this man. This is like the story of the grasshopper and the ant. It sounds hard, but the larger truth is that a society can tolerate some free riders, but eventually more ants decide it is easier to act like grasshoppers and the services become substantially worse or even stop altogether.
In this case the system will not break down today or tomorrow because of providing free services for one person. There is a tipping point at which it will. On the other hand, this terrible example will encourage some grasshoppers to behave like ants which conversely makes for a more robust system than would occur otherwise.
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Ross Conatser: A basic question regarding how to organize a society is the problem of free riders like this man. This is like the story of the grasshopper and the ant. It sounds hard, but the larger truth is that a society can tolerate some free riders, but eventually more ants decide it is easier to act like grasshoppers and the services become substantially worse or even stop altogether.
In this case the system will not break down today or tomorrow because of providing free services for one person. There is a tipping point at which it will. On the other hand, this terrible example will encourage some grasshoppers to behave like ants which conversely makes for a more robust system than would occur otherwise. · Oct 7 at 10:46am
Perfect! Hat tip to you!
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Good point. Collecting a small sum from people before the fact of rare events like fires has got to be much, much easier than collecting much larger sums from people after fires.
It's even possible that, in order for the fire department to stay funded enough to function, their "after the fact fee" would have to be so large that letting your house burn down would seem cheap by comparison. If, as Tommy points out, the fire department is able to reliably collect at all.
I'm content to agree with Tommy here, that Mr Cranick made a bet on insurance and lost. Tragic, sure. But life is full of bigger tragedies than that.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Tommy De Seno: Jaydee the problem with your 3rd scenario of being allowed to pay a higher amount if your house catches fire is that fires are rare. Most people will take that bet and not pay the $75. Then the fire department is underfunded and can't protect anyone.
· Oct 7 at 10:39am
Why is it underfunded? Because not enough opt-in folks signed up?
Anyway, the existence of "supplemental insurance" indicates (to me at least) that many people won't take that bet.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Tommy De Seno: Jaydee the problem with your 3rd scenario of being allowed to pay a higher amount if your house catches fire is that fires are rare. Most people will take that bet and not pay the $75. Then the fire department is underfunded and can't protect anyone.
Don't forget the 4th scenario - the homeowner gets his bill and says "I didn't call you and ask you to put the fire out. I don't owe you a dime. Sue me."
You think that won't be the norm? · Oct 7 at 10:39am
Actually, the Fire Department is fully funded by the City of Fulton.
The $75.00 fee was for response outside their jurisdiction, not for funding the department.
What would the city department do if the unincorperated area were to put together a volunteer department and not need the city to respond?
.
As for Scenerio 4, all 911 calls are recorded and archived with the call origination included in the archive.
.
Again, this is a bureaucratic problem.
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Jaydee would the fire department have an obligation to go to towns where they don't offer service for a fee?
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Mark Woodworth: Couldn't this be handled in the same way that showing up at the emergency room now is? ...
... It's not that the free market can't do these things, it's that we have numbed peoples senses to the true cost of things. The demand for free things is infinite. · Oct 7 at 10:06am
Years ago, this situation frequently occurred in emergency rooms, always good for a "Patient Dies in Parking Lot, No Insurance" headline. Public outrage lead to passage of EMTALA - the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - which requires hospital emergency rooms to treat any patient prior to any discussion of insurance or ability to pay. Hospitals typically hide 12 to 16% in your hospital bill (or insurance premium) to cover this cost. (Probably a lot more for you left-coastals with the illegal immigration problem) Similar laws for public transportation, the supermarket, day care, utilities, universities, and any other good or service deemed "essential" would surely lead to the worker's paradise that our president envisions.
Edited on Oct 7, 2010 at 11:10amMay '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
The best summery of this issue is that there are several good ways this arrangement could have been setup (and has been handled in other states/counties) but it was handled poorly and everyone comes off badly.
A lessons for local governments everywhere. Think through these scenarios beforehand, so you don't put your firefighters into these impossible situations.
Edited on Oct 7, 2010 at 11:18amJul '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
I don't beleive they do.
Their responsibility is to protect the area they were chartered to protect.
When the department runs outside of it's area to provide service they are leaving the area they were chartered to protect vulnerable. Here in Puyallup our fire department has an agreement with the Graham and Fredrickson departments to back fill for each other in a quid pro qou pro basis.
The people in that unincorporated area were given an option;
City of Fulton said, we will send our Fire Department to your home from our City if you pay us $75.00 a year. (pretty cheap, my Homeowner's Association asks for more.)
The City of Fulton Fire Department is Responsible to the City of Fulton for fire protection. If another town has a Fire Department of their own which proves inadequate to a situation, the City of Fulton may respond if an agreement was made ahead of time.
But Fulton is under No Obligation to Respond in the absense of such.
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
That's what I mean, Jaydee. This man lived outside the City. There is no obligation to put his fire out.
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
An interesting discussion. One which we had at my office when this story became public. My first impression was that this man Cranick is a disgusting, cheap freeloader. He was willing to risk the safety and well-being of his family and pets for a measely $75. The firefighters are employed by the city and on duty. They had to follow orders and their orders were correct. The city had no obligation to even offer services to the county property owners, but they did so out of moral consideration. The $75 fee is so nominal as to be laughable...until a Cranick shows up with his pants, uh house, on fire. To pre-determine the cost of putting out a fire before the fact is impossible. There are way to many variables. What would an individual's cost to buy/ maintain the equipment and employ / train the personnel 24/7? It would be hundreds of thousands of dollars, verging on 7 figures. Does anyone think a guy like Cranick would pay the actual bill after the fact? I agree with Tommy and Ross. The man got what he deserved. His pets should have, long ago, fled for a better master.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
I never said there was any obligation by the City to put out the Fire.
My complaint is with the bureaucrats who cannot think through actions and consequences.
They limited those outside the district with only 2 options, without including a third option that would have allieved them of the public condemnation that is sure to be heaped upon them for operating within the law, and within agreements made before the fact.
Unlike the family in the old (very boring and bad) comedy Lost in America, this guy will be getting the full force of public opinion and possibly even Congressional Legislative Authority behind his SOB Story. (Also a consequence of these unthinking bureaucrats.)
.
My main point; This was not a failure of a Libertarian Experiment, or of the Fire Department. It was the failure of a bureaucracy to make policy for the real world.
My follow on point is that when bureaucrats are fully in charge of health care compassion and common sense will cease to exist!
Edited on Oct 7, 2010 at 11:39amAug '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
I'm sure these points have been made many times over by now, but I'm a terribly important person and I'm far too lazy to read through ALL the comments, by golly.
- This is a government-run fire department we're talking about. If it was a privately-owned fire department then the man in charge at the scene would have had the authority to put out the fire and then hand the homeowner a bill for the service. Because it's a government-run fire department the man in charge at the scene believed that his "hands were tied" by the rules. Score one for free market fire services and one demerit for government-run fire services.
- The house in question was outside the normal service area of the fire department. This fire department had ZERO responsibility for even being in the area. The question I find myself forced to ask is, why was the fire department even dispatched to the area in the first place? It's a very inefficient system if they have to send the trucks and the crews to the fire in order to find out if the caller is a subscriber.
Edited on Oct 7, 2010 at 11:46amMay '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Jaydee_007: This is the problem with public bureaucracy, no creative thought.
The lack of option 3 is where this system fails.
3) Don't Pay the $75.00 and be responsible for the full cost of a fire call by the department.
In all 3 cases the Fire Department acts like a Fire Department.
Okay, let's assume the city added the third option. How, exactly, does the city calculate the cost of a full call? How does the city collect the money? Who pays the cost when someone, a firefighter or civilian, gets injured? Who pays if something gets damaged or broken that shouldn't have been? How far should this additional service extend (remember, the house that burned was actually outside the city the fire department actually serves)? What if it is obvious that the homeowner does not have the means to pay the cost of the full call? What if the homeowner isn't home to agree to pay when the fire breaks out?
Mind you, these questions all involve cost that must be borne by someone. Is it fair to put that cost on the city residents against their will? No.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Misthiocracy:
Edited on Oct 07 at 11:46 am
Because his paying neighbor's property caught fire too.
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Palaeologus
Misthiocracy:
Edited on Oct 07 at 11:46 am
Because his paying neighbor's property caught fire too. · Oct 7 at 12:23pm
Ok, so they were responding to the subscriber's call and were therefore too busy to deal with the non-subscriber's call. That is not the same thing as "watching while his house burned down". After all, they were busy putting out a fire. Would people prefer they work on the non-subscriber's fire BEFORE working on the subscriber's fire?
The only argument I can think of for working on the non-subscriber's fire would be that it would prevent the fire from spreading to subscribers' houses. A subscriber could conceivably sue the department if a non-subscriber's fire was allowed to spread.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Jimmie Bise Jr
Who pays the cost when someone, a firefighter or civilian, gets injured? Who pays if something gets damaged or broken that shouldn't have been? · Oct 7 at 12:01pm
Precisely. It's been my experience that pretty much every time you see an organization do something weird like this, the root cause is always the same: liability, and fear of it.
What if a firefighter dies fighting a blaze for a non-subscriber, who lives outside the firefighter's jurisdiction? What do you say to the widow? More importantly, what do you say to her lawyer who shows up to file suit on the grounds that he shouldn't have been fighting that particular fire?
Everyone who is saying the optimal solution would be for the firefighters to negotiate a payment on the scene don't seem to understand that municipal services (police, fire, EMS) don't work that way. We aren't given our equipment to use as we please outside our defined area, with the ability to extend our jurisdiction for a little coin, like some kind of emergency response Blackwater. That's a good way to end up jobless.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Okay;
Accounting 101
There are two kinds of Costs involved with Fire Departments.
Inescapable Costs.
These are costs the city will incur simply by having a fire Department.
They include (but are not limited to) Buildings; Maintenance of Equipment; Staff; Training. The city has to pay this sum even if an emergency call never comes in.
Escapable Costs.
These are the costs specific to response to a fire.
Please be sure to note that the chief is aware of both of these sets of costs and will be able to create an itemization of the cost to respond to every fire that occurs.
Itemizaton includes the cost of gasolone (or diesel) for the engine, the recovery costs of the equipment used, both perishable and non-perishable. The hourly labor costs of the personnel from alarm response to return to the station.
Who pays for damage or breakage? Same folks same way if the Fire Dept. were within the city limits.
Never forget, I said this information of their options is disciminated to the homeowners outside of the jurisdiction BEFORE hand.
Simply stated, stay within your jurisdiction or don't!
Halfway measures never work.
Jul '10
Re: Libertarian Experiment Goes Up In Flames
Diane, I thought this story would get a lively response. But I do not understand why Foster or yourself consider it a "libertarian" issue.
It's about a guy who assumed that he would get a free service, while his more responsible and civic-minded neighbors paid the freight.
And frankly, I admired those firefighters for standing aside; it demonstrated their understanding of principle.
By the way, I question whether any pets actually perished in the fire. It was a slow-moving blaze that started in some trash barrels 30 feet from the home and took, by the firefighters' account, nearly two hours to consume the structure. The pets weren't mentioned on day one of the story, nor is there any evidence that Mr. Granick pleaded with the firemen to save his pets at the time. Something fishy there.