Libertarianism In Action — Obion County, TN

[Patrick Degan]

"There is nothing more pretty than a fire":

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground
Reporter - Jason Hibbs
Photojournalist - Mark Owen

Story Created: Sep 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM CDT

Story Updated: Sep 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM CDT

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.

They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

We asked him why.

He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.

"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.

But remember, this has to be a much better alternative than the evils of socialism and taxation...

[Vaporous]

That's not libertarianism. It's the government charging for a service. Now, if these idiots were a private company haggling prices for putting out the fire while the house burned down, then it would be libertarianism.

Regardless of what else it is, it's painfully stupid. I don't care what your bosses tell you; if you see someone's house burning and you can stop it and don't, you're an asshole. If you lose your job, that's okay. It's better than being forced to watch people cry at your feet for help you won't give them while their lives go up in smoke.

[Sinewmire]

Also I'll bet it cost more than $75 to pay those firefighters and their equipment for a call out where all they did was stand around. OK, I appreciate they did take action once a neighbor's property caught fire, but still.

[Alyeska]

The neighbor should sue. Because the firefighters didn't try to put out the initial fire, his house caught fire needlessly.

Its fucking stupid is what it is.

[neoolong]

So if there's a whole neighborhood and only one house paid the fee, they'd let a fire spread through fifteen houses before they tried to save the one?

I don't get why this is a fee instead of just a line item in the overall tax revenue that the city gets. It's just stupid.

[Patrick Degan]

Granted, it is not a case of the fire service being wholly privatised, since the city of South Fulton still controls it. But the incident does embody the libertarian concept of making public utilities such as fire protection a fee-for-service operation (in this case, those residing outside the city limits of South Fulton), guaranteeing fire protection only to those who pay as opposed to a universal service. And the mayor's attitude was exactly like that of a private corporation: "You didn't pay? Sorry pal, you're shit out of luck. Too bad about your house burning down but that's not our problem."

[Phantasee]

Apparently it's a fee for people outside the town itself. So they aren't paying property taxes to the municipality that provides the fire department, I imagine.

Edit: however they shouldn't do what they did. I'd have put the fire out and billed them part of the cost. It would keep people from not paying the fee thinking they'd get free fire service anyway, and would instead encourage them to pay for the "insurance".

[Psychic_Sandwich]

If you go to central London and pay close attention, you'll notice that a lot of the older buildings have little bronze plaques on them dated from the 1800s and talking about fire insurance. If you didn't have one of those, then the fire brigade wouldn't help you if your building caught fire. That was a proper 'libertarian' system, in that the fire brigades were private organisations at that point. The actual effect was basically exactly the same as this, so the comparison is, IMO, an apt one.

There's a reason we abandoned that system, namely, that it was utter bollocks.

[General Zod]

Because the fire would never spread to other residents in the neighborhood or anything. Morons.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Is this even legal? I thought fire departments were a mandatory service?

[Jaepheth]

I guess they don't want to deal with pre-existing conditions either.

[Temujin]

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

In a way those lines makes it sound almost like mob protection money.

[Sinewmire]

Pratchett spoofed privitised Firefighters in the discworld books. Ankh-Morpork had a fire-insurance based system which worked until the firement started wandering around people's homes going "Oooh, those curtains would go up in seconds, if you get my drift." Afterwards they were nationalised and paid per fire, the problem of which didn't become obvious until the Summer of Fires.

Always funny when life imitates art, isn't it?

[Lord Relvenous]

The neighbor should sue. Because the firefighters didn't try to put out the initial fire, his house caught fire needlessly.

Its fucking stupid is what it is.

The neighbor's field caught fire and they put it out. Either way, this is ridiculous. The firefighters stood and watched for hours. I think whatever misguided point was being made by the mayor was made after the first hour. Hell, he could have accepted the offer, charged them $5000, then made a release that it would have been fiscally irresponsible to turn down potential revenues. Instead we get tough guy, "Didn't pay? Tough luck" bullshit. Yeah, that'll increase voter confidence in their government.

[Broomstick]

Is this even legal? I thought fire departments were a mandatory service?

No, actually it's not. Remarkable, huh?

In the 19th Century the US cities had private fire companies, with results such as Psychic Sandwich and, yes, even Terry Pratchett predicted. People outside of cities relied on neighbors and bucket brigades.

That is part (although not all) of the reason you had epic city fires prior to the 20th Century.

By the 20th Century citizens wanted local government to take over fire protection, particularly in fire-prone areas. It was seen as part of being civilized as opposed to wilderness here in the US. But even today, if you get far enough out, there is no fire protection. Wilderness areas might have State or Federal folks to fight wildfires, but protection for local homes and businesses is a function of government.

It costs money, of course. Money typically raised by taxes. Except now people have forgotten how it used to be, and no longer want to pay for services.

[Temujin]

The funny thing is, conservatives will say they should have paid the money. But if that exact same amount of money was taken via taxes, it would be evil thieving socialism.

[Alphawolf55]

The neighbor should sue. Because the firefighters didn't try to put out the initial fire, his house caught fire needlessly.

Its fucking stupid is what it is.

The neighbor's field caught fire and they put it out. Either way, this is ridiculous. The firefighters stood and watched for hours. I think whatever misguided point was being made by the mayor was made after the first hour. Hell, he could have accepted the offer, charged them $5000, then made a release that it would have been fiscally irresponsible to turn down potential revenues. Instead we get tough guy, "Didn't pay? Tough luck" bullshit. Yeah, that'll increase voter confidence in their government.

Yeah just charge a ridiculously high rate. 5000-7500 would pretty much be as much as they'd getif they lived there for 50-100 years.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The funny thing is, conservatives will say they should have paid the money. But if that exact same amount of money was taken via taxes, it would be evil thieving socialism.

Which, when you get right down to it shows how utterly vapid the average conservatives position on things are. Depending on how you paint it, their worship of the "freemarket" could, simply by moving some words around, become the exact mirror of taxes and evil socialism.

[FSTargetDrone]

So, those firefighters were 100% sure there was no one in the property when it burned? They were sure? Really, really, super-duper sure? They took the word of distressed property owners and residents (who are doubtless are in the clearest state of mind at a time like that) that no one was in the building? Did they even ask?

"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

Sorry, they don't get off that easily. Not in my book.

Those firefighters (yes, those firefighters who stood around with their thumbs up their ass and watched it burn) and everyone involved in that nonsensical policy should be prosecuted. Find a way to prosecute them. They can start with that assclown mayor.

It is utterly irresponsible to let a property burn like that. The fire spread (what a surprise) and can you imagine if it was particularly dry out? If it spread and spread and burned large amounts of land and buildings? They had the means and they did nothing. Fuck 'em. Just following orders? Fuck 'em all.

[Phantasee]

You people need to take off your blinders and read the damn article. The county residents do pay taxes for fire fighting: it's the $75. These people don't live in the city, they aren't paying property taxes to the city. If they want coverage out in the sticks it's okay for the city to ask for some funding from the land owners out there.

If this was within the city limits, yeah, it's bullshit. And even if they aren't, they should have used my solution (which the family also wanted: pay the bill after, but fight the fire now). So the fire chief is a dick but the overall situation that lead to this isn't unreasonable. People living in the counties around Edmonton, but just outside the city limits, can get water and gas service from the City for a (hefty) fee. Why? They don't pay property tax to the city but want city services.

Fair is fair.

[Broomstick]

It could be the firefighters disagree with the "let it burn" policy but wanted to use this case as an example of why it's bad policy. Which is more of a possible explanation than an excuse.

[FSTargetDrone]

You people need to take off your blinders and read the damn article. The county residents do pay taxes for fire fighting: it's the $75. These people don't live in the city, they aren't paying property taxes to the city. If they want coverage out in the sticks it's okay for the city to ask for some funding from the land owners out there.

If this was within the city limits, yeah, it's bullshit. And even if they aren't, they should have used my solution (which the family also wanted: pay the bill after, but fight the fire now). So the fire chief is a dick but the overall situation that lead to this isn't unreasonable. People living in the counties around Edmonton, but just outside the city limits, can get water and gas service from the City for a (hefty) fee. Why? They don't pay property tax to the city but want city services.

Fair is fair.

I did read the article. I quoted from it.

I don't care if they are living on the other side of the fucking hick state. Those firefighters showed up, stood around and watched, did nothing and waiting until the guy next door who had paid had his property burning before they made any moves. That's fucking cowardly. I don't give a toss what the policy is. I don't care if the dipshit mayor threatened the firefighters with firings if they broke policy and helped out. The right thing, the moral thing, for those people to do is to put out the fire. Period. No amount of excuse-making is going to cut it.

What if someone was in the place and died? What if the family was inside and, overcome by smoke, couldn't escape? Who was to know if anyone was inside before they found blackened bones in the ashes the next day? The only good about this brain-dead situation is that no one died.

It could be the firefighters disagree with the "let it burn" policy but wanted to use this case as an example of why it's bad policy. Which is more of a possible explanation than an excuse.

A criminally dangerous way to protest.

[Chaotic Neutral]

What could this man sue the city for, if anything?

[CmdrWilkens]

What could this man sue the city for, if anything?

Nothing, he was not entitled to the service and the department did react when the neighbor's yard, which was entitled to service, caught fire. They can't be hit for negligence as they rendered their required service and did so efficiently. They can't be charged with destruction to the property since they neither started nor abetted the fire and I don't know what else you could go after them for. It was certainly immoral but not illegal, the ONLY thing is you could maybe argue it was unethical for them to be present and refuse to fight the entirety of the fire...actually that would be the sole argument.

You could (though I don't know the likely hood of success) argue that the fire constitutes a single event and once it spread to a covered property (which the firefighters are obligated to respond to) that failure to fight the entire fire constitutes a negligent lapse...but in order to do so you would have to argue that the fire is defined not by its continuing extent by by its maximum extent. The problem is that I don't think anybody is going to rule in favor of such an action because it opens up the possibility that fire departments could be liable for actions in a neighboring departments that jumps jurisdictional lines at any point.

[Patrick Degan]

You people need to take off your blinders and read the damn article. The county residents do pay taxes for fire fighting: it's the $75. These people don't live in the city, they aren't paying property taxes to the city. If they want coverage out in the sticks it's okay for the city to ask for some funding from the land owners out there.

If this was within the city limits, yeah, it's bullshit. And even if they aren't, they should have used my solution (which the family also wanted: pay the bill after, but fight the fire now). So the fire chief is a dick but the overall situation that lead to this isn't unreasonable. People living in the counties around Edmonton, but just outside the city limits, can get water and gas service from the City for a (hefty) fee. Why? They don't pay property tax to the city but want city services.

Fair is fair.

Fair is most decidedly not fair in this incident. Those firefighters had a higher duty of care than the average citizen. They are emergency responders and had the means to put out a fire which was immediately destroying a family's property and endangering the lives and properties of the surrounding homeowners. Their action, or lack thereof, constitutes reckless endangerment and willful negligence. Had there been people trapped in the house as it was burning down, that firecrew would have been guilty of negligent homicide. The comparison with paying a fee for receiving water and gas service in no way compares to this situation and that should be rather obvious.