Why I support the fire department completely.

[JVS]

In any given year:

P1= 75, P2=F*C*B
(P is price, F is probability of a fire within the year, C is probability of compliance with the bill presented, and B is the bill for extinguishing a fire)

is simply not as good an incentive for selecting P1 as

P2=F*H
(H is total value of the house and all things in it)

[Swede]

1. What logarithms are you using to solve this?

:shrug:

[fascisthunter]

2. yes... that socialist fire department

and man do they do a good job!

[TexasObserver]

3. That's irrational.

It fails to account for many other things, such as the need to put out fires so they don't spread, or the fact that sometimes people simply forget.

The better way, the logical way, is to assess to the unpaid homeowner the entire fire department cost of putting out the fire.

[JVS]

5. The need to put out fires so they don't spread does not figure into the consumer's spending behavior

And the B above would be the "entire cost of putting out the fire"

[TexasObserver]

44. Your formula is nonsense.

[JVS]

46. How? And why should I trust your opinion?

[TexasObserver]

48. If I thought you'd understand, I'd explain it to you.

[JVS]

52. Nice cop out.

[TexasObserver]

55. Your formula is gibberish.

[JVS]

60. It's a sad day when people mistake a cost assessment formula for gibberish.

[TexasObserver]

64. It's a sad day when people think a glib formula addresses real issues.

Your formula assumes that people act with full knowledge, and they don't. It assumes that everyone is fully capable of making a decision, when they aren't. It assumes that each person rationally makes their decisions. It ignores the very real problems of fires that spread beyond their original source.

The fact that you endorse the action by the fire department should let you know that your formulation is errant.

[JVS]

66. LOL

"The fact that you endorse the action by the fire department should let you know that your formulation is errant."

Yeah, we wouldn't want to assume information is wrong simply because it points out something we don't like.

[TexasObserver]

67. Your idea is roundly rejected by the tribe.

Scoreboard.

[JVS]

68. If reason itself is with me, I can a host defy.

[hughee99]

103. It could be.

an irrational number is any real number which cannot be expressed as a fraction a/b, where a and b are integers, with b non-zero, and is therefore not a rational number. For example, the square root of 2.

[HopeHoops]

4. That's just silly. The long-standing tradition was always "everyone pitch in".

That's how bucket brigades started. It is understandable that even volunteer departments don't want people "in the way" when they're doing their job. They're trained in it. Still, if there's a building or woods fire, ANYWHERE, it needs to be put out. You can think of that as socialism if you want to. I consider it "social responsibility".

[itsrobert]

6. It's social responsibility to pay your taxes

in this case a $75 fee.

[droidamus2]

10. Yes of course..

Because in America today the only damn important thing is money, money, money. Those that got get what they want screw the rest that is the new motto of the United States. How about human compassion, oh wait no I can't make money off of that so strike that out. How about being a good neighbor, nope only if I can make a buck. How about doing your damn job as a firefighter and putting out the fires, sure if you paid me up front and no taxes don't count. So forgetting or even intentional not paying a $75.00 extortion fee is a reason to lose everything you have including your pets. It's so nice to see we are such a moral, caring country.

[closeupready]

14. And so when money collides with humanity, money wins?

Or, "Money trumps peace", as we've been told?

[Pithlet]

54. So what do we do about Libertarian/Tea bagger types who don't want to pitch in?

So we are supposed to stretch the resources thin because of them? Why is that fair? Why should we let them do that to us? Yes. Sometimes money IS a factor. nnerWhy should a city's resources be stretched thinner because a neighboring community doesn't want to pay their taxes? IF they want to vote that way, sometimes they should get the consequences. Hey, maybe they won't vote that way if they actually do face the music.

[closeupready]

69. We come together and say, "this is one community".

n/t

[Pithlet]

73. And then let the fire department go bankrupt?

And no one gets fire service? That's ludicrous. Resources are finite. They require a certain amount of funding. A certain area with a certain amount of people requires an amount of funding. Not to mention it indulges these anti-tax anti government types. They forced this choice on them. It's not as if this fire department did this first thing. They tried to work with them. This was a last resort.

[closeupready]

80. You know what an invoice for services rendered is?

And garnishment and liens?

[Pithlet]

84. Yes. Doing those things costs money. And it isn't always recovered.

Do you know that it costs more money to maintain a larger fire depatment? Why should the city maintain a larger fire department meant to also cover the county when the county voted not to fund it? They kept fighting the fires anyway. The weren't recovering the money. That's the whole point. Recovering money from deadbeats is a cost.

[closeupready]

87. Sometimes it isn't, and sometimes it is. Meanwhile, someone's home is on fire.

You are suggesting you can make a snap judgment as to whether someone has the financial resources to pay for this for purposes of determining whether to put the fire out. Don't be ridiculous! :mad:

[Pithlet]

89. It's not a snap judgemnt. It's a situation that had been ongoing for some time.

This fire department can't afford to be city/county unless they're funded that way. They already know this beforehand. Why you or anyone says they're morally obligated to do this is beyond me. I don't understand. If any entity is forced to operate outside their budget they will eventually fail. No snap judging about that.

[closeupready]

90. You're all over the map on this. The FIRE was NOT "ongoing for some time."

To decide whether or not he could pay post-facto would have required a snap judgment in the moment (during which the fire is consuming his home) as to his financial wherewithal.

He even OFFERED to pay.

[Pithlet]

92. Not the fire. The situation between the city and the county. n/t

[Pithlet]

93. It's pretty simple. They keep showing up when people don't pay

People won't pay the fee. They already tried chasing people for the money after the fact. They were bleeding money because of it. I'm all over the map? Really. Don't think so. I've been pretty consistent in my position that the fire department was right in what they did.

[JVS]

94. The fact that 50% of the residents of the county don't pay demonstrates how...

accustomed to the free ride they've become.

[Pithlet]

95. I think a lot of people are rushing to judgment without having all the facts.

Or they just don't care. A house burned down! Cruelty! OMGZ! They're just not looking at the big picture. This is a fire company on the verge of bankruptcy because of how this county has been treating them. I'm just the crank who doesn't give a shit about the homeowner to them. Not the progressive liberal who cares about the community full of taxpayers who are being hurt by what the county full of taxphobes are doing.

Yes, letting a house burn down is drastic. It isn't a good thing. It should never come to that. But sometimes people are driven to drastic measures.

[Pithlet]

85. Yes. Doing those things costs money. And it isn't always recovered.

Do you know that it costs more money to maintain a larger fire depatment? Why should the city maintain a larger fire department meant to also cover the county when the county voted not to fund it? They kept fighting the fires anyway. The weren't recovering the money. That's the whole point. Recovering money from deadbeats is a cost.

[Pithlet]

74. And then let the fire department go bankrupt?

And no one gets fire service? That's ludicrous. Resources are finite. They require a certain amount of funding. A certain area with a certain amount of people requires an amount of funding. Not to mention it indulges these anti-tax anti government types. They forced this choice on them. It's not as if this fire department did this first thing. They tried to work with them. This was a last resort.

[Pithlet]

76. That reminds me, your "one community" comment.

I live in a city that wants to become "one community" with a county because it makes sense fiscally. I live in a large metropolitan area with a surrounding county filled with suburban communities, and it would make more sense fiscally and everyone would benefit from everyone coming together and becoming one entity. But when it comes to a vote, the county voters will very likely vote it down because they're filled with taxphobes who are buying the fear attack adds telling them their taxes will go up. The "one community" thing would likely not work in the story we're talking about for the same reason. Not to mention they're in two different states.

[LanternWaste]

104. One does not deny the other...

One aspect of social responsibility does not deny the other.

[JVS]

7. I'm just pointing out the way that the consumer's decision would be made.

He's either going to go with a price for coverage or a price for non-coverage. The larger the price for non-coverage, the more likely he is to decide on the coverage.

[blindpig]

8. 'Consumers'...

Consumers are to humans as dogs are to wolves.

[JVS]

9. Are we supposed to pretend that these homeowners aren't making decisions based on prices?

[Pholus]

13. Well if by prices you mean lack of money from fees, costs, taxes, insurance and rising prices.

Perhaps.

Then again, with as many bills as I get I tend to misplace one every now and then too.

[JVS]

15. What are you talking about?

It's a simple matter of cost benefit analysis. There is a price for coverage and a price for non-coverage. A homeowner chooses one of them in deciding whether to buy the coverage or not.

[Pholus]

16. If you're broke, you have NO need to do the cost-benefit analysis.

[JVS]

17. Fortunately, there are very few homeowners who don't have $75

[Pholus]

18. True I guess. So nice that we play these games so some politician can run on "no taxes on my watch"

[Pholus]

21. Then again, $75 can be a day's wages after taxes where I grew up.

[JVS]

79. One can pay a lot of $75 fees by selling a recreational vehicle.

[Pholus]

108. The people I'm thinking up have a beat up camry

A few less fees from that one, Mr. Consumer Math

[JVS]

109. The people in the original story are now living in their RV

if only they had sold it to pay the fire fee, they'd still have a house.

[Pholus]

112. Just like any protection racket. "Nice RV. Be a shame if something happened to it....."

[JVS]

115. Obviously expecting people to defray the cost of protecting their property is a protection racket

:eyes:

[Pholus]

114. So you know the value of everything -- what model year RV?

Cause a 1985 is worth a bit less than a 2007 but they're still both RV's.

[blindpig]

41. Just pointing out...

the un-naturalness of our situation.

Capitalism distorts everything, including human behavior.

[HopeHoops]

81. A fire department IS NOT a fucking insurance company!!!

Do police only respond to houses that have paid up? Do they only plow the street in front of houses that have paid up? These are community services that should be supported by the local government and voluntarily supplemented by residence who choose to do so. They aren't "utilities". Even the fucking Republicans used to think that way, and probably still would if THEIR houses were on fire. What the HELL is wrong with this country now?

[JVS]

132. Buyer behavior is similar in both situations.

[HopeHoops]

133. ??? Non-sequitur.

What the hell is THAT supposed to mean?

[JVS]

134. The OP is all about decision making on the part of the buyer.

The same calculus comes into play for fire coverage as comes into play for fire insurance.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

138. Now that's non-sequitor

It doesn't matter what the difference of the coverage's nature is. What matters in how the consumer weighs the decision of purchasing them or not.

[Towlie]

11. Bogus! That might argue for the wisdom of fire insurance, but NOT for what those firefighters did.

[jpgray]

12. At disastrous levels of harm, a hard line on moral hazard is unsupportable

For me, the harm of placing an investment bank in receivership and selling it off doesn't meet that standard. The harm of losing one's shelter or life does, however. Whatever the failure of government to provide the proper incentives for responsibility, the most catastrophic harm ought still to be prevented where practical. Opposing improper policy does not require viewing its most harmful attendant disasters as just and necessary punishment for that policy's supporters.

[JVS]

20. What is disastrous? I'll agree to loss of life, but a home is property.

And it seems to me that if one considers loss of their home to fire to be disastrous, then $75 for the coverage would provide a lot of utility for the money.

[Pholus]

22. Who pays the firefighters to check if there is someone in the burning building?

[JVS]

24. Well if you want to be meticulous about it, they could be left to burn.

[Pholus]

25. After all, who cares about some charred "free riders," right?

[JVS]

26. Obviously the person who chooses not to pay the $75 doesn't care much for those charred free riders

[Pholus]

111. No cash, no rights -- the new "American Way." So when is your IPO on your private fire dept?

[jpgray]

29. It's better described as shelter than simple property in this case

I admit people will draw the line in different places, but everyone does draw it somewhere. That people are incompetent at risk management should come as no surprise, so the important task is not so much to ensure they feel the brunt of their incompetence through catastrophic harm.

Take another example: the Outer Banks developments. It was essentially inevitable that the homeowners would see their McMansions destroyed, but that's nothing to be hoped for, in my view. And does the harm that results distribute punishment fairly? The developers that made a killing on exploiting the wealthy ignorant are insulated from the harm, as fees collected by predatory mortgage lenders who inflated the housing bubble were protected from the costs of foreclosure. One could argue that punishment is necessary, but it's not the happiest form of punishment when the exploited (if willing) ignorant get the exclusive share of it, being only one party of the many that bear responsibility.

[JVS]

31. You seem to be steering this conversation rather hard toward the concept of moral hazard/punishment.

That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the free rider problem and the process by which a consumer decides to free ride.
In the OP I described the two different ways that the comparative costs of coverage and non-coverage can be formed depending on the policy of the fire department. The reason that I show this is that unless a situation is maintained in which the cost of non-coverage is demonstrably higher than coverage, then many people will not pay. If enough people don't pay then there can be no coverage for anyone, which truly is the worst case scenario.

You mention that most people are incompetent at risk management, that's even more of a reason that a sharp difference between P1 and P2 must be maintained, as it is easier for them to discern.

[jpgray]

35. In certain cases, the public shouldn't be in the business of evaluating risk

Because they are terrible at it. Even if the costs are shown accurately and repeatedly, they will shirk them if given cover to do so. This attitude does not exist in a vacuum--for certain risks, it is inconceivable (or illegal) for people to operate without protection, even where an honest accounting of cost or risk might show such protection to be to their disadvantage in specific cases. Think car insurance, and, to a lesser degree, health insurance.

For other risks, public opinion is often massaged in the opposite direction. We're again ignoring a whole other host of actors who benefit from deluding people into the idea that they are the best judge of a particular risk. The politician who runs on such ideology might simply be listening to the consultant who tells her that taxes are unpopular. The voter who supports her may be duped by the think tank drone who pens an op ed (often for pay by interested parties) arguing a social service that addresses a particular risk is a waste of money.

So to me, it is still about punishment that is heavily weighted against the deluded, who are certainly enablers but are scarcely originators of the problem. The originators tend to escape, and yet they are the most guilty of convincing people that they understand and can manage risk, often despite voluminous and explicit evidence to the contrary.

I don't see a muddle over costs as a major or decisive culprit, in other words.

[JVS]

40. I am not advocating for the public to be in the business of evaluating risk

I'm just pointing out that in developing their policy, the fire department has to consider the fact that changes in policy create changes in the cost-benefit structure, which in turn can adversely their ability to fund and maintain services.

[jpgray]

47. But what encouraged this cost-benefit structure?

Why did it make sense to those who agreed to the policy?

[JVS]

51. elaborate

[jpgray]

75. Okay

You argue that the current policy provides no clear incentive to pay $75 against the -risk- of fire, so long as one can pay $75 only in the -event- of fire, thereby receiving the same protection. This is true--for paying the fee against risk every year to be an attractive option, the alternative to payment has to entail greater costs.

In my view nobody who formed, supported or liked the sound of this policy weighed its structure rationally. I doubt anyone concluded that the fire department must stand by and watch as a house burned down for there to be any incentive to pay the fee. If I'm correct, whose fault is that?

[JVS]

78. Not quite.

"You argue that the current policy provides no clear incentive to pay $75 against the -risk- of fire, so long as one can pay $75 only in the -event- of fire, thereby receiving the same protection. This is true--for paying the fee against risk every year to be an attractive option, the alternative to payment has to entail greater costs."

Actually I was comparing the cost structure of having your house burn down vs the cost structure structure of being charged some fee B. Given the fact that such a fee would not be collected in all cases, I also introduced C to represent the probability of getting paid. It could be noted that as B increases C decreases, but that added level of complexity to the model doesn't really help clarify discussion, so I omit that in favor of a simpler model. $75 at first vs $75 in the event of would guarantee selection of payment only in the event of fire. But the gist is about the same. Without loss of the house as a possibility, differentiation of the the better decision is more difficult.

"In my view nobody who formed, supported or liked the sound of this policy weighed its structure rationally. I doubt anyone concluded that the fire department must stand by and watch as a house burned down for there to be any incentive to pay the fee. If I'm correct, whose fault is that?"

I think you're very wrong. When presented with the fire department's option of "Pay $75 each year or you will not have fire service" I do not see any reason to think that they are bluffing. I also doubt that their inaction is attributable to malice rather than the knowledge that if they deviate from the policy they run the risk of providing a massive disincentive to subscribe to coverage.

[jpgray]

82. I never argued there was malice here

But I doubt there was a huddle for discussion on the vagaries of incentive in public policy either. People accept and even support these sorts of policies in total ignorance of their implications, no matter how explicitly they are spelled out. I don't think they spent any time considering whether it was a bluff or not. This consideration came with the event, I have little doubt--for the policymaker, the homeowner, and the fire department.

It's a similar thing for deregulation policy that encouraged massively-leveraged investment in debt--the policymakers certainly did not consider what should happen if interconnected bank giants should begin to fail, those same giants demonstrably did not, and the taxpayer and voter most definitely did not.

This is a far simpler case, and it should have been utterly clear to everyone. But the absurdity of the policy and the actions on all sides show to me that no serious consideration was given to the implications. If it had been, a provision for a high penalty fee would have been included. The alternative, that the person's house should burn down, was unlikely to be the actively intended consequence in the mind of anyone involved.

[JVS]

83. There must be some kind of reasoning behind the establishment of policy.

Also, I believe there probably was consideration of the options, as the free rider problem is a very basic issue that covers the provision of public goods and a municipal government deals with issues involving it quite frequently.

I also don't think that a policy is absurd because it can result in situations people don't like. The policy is made in consideration of the limitations of the municipal government (it cannot compel payment from those outside of its jurisdiction) and the need for funding to offer services to those people. The fact that an individual homeowner makes poor choices given the options does not make the policy absurd.

[jpgray]

91. The free rider problem is a basic issue--was this the best way to deal with it?

If we have a fire department capable of responding, what should be the penalty for a free rider? That a penalty should exist seems reasonable, but that it should include the free rider's house burning down, where aid is available, is absurd.

It is rarely necessary or desirable that a fire department, capable of responding, should respond only within the limits of its jurisdiction. Mutual aid response policies are not uncommon--across state lines, county lines, and other municipal barriers. Does one municipality always charge another for this aid? Do they all demand fees from one another? Hardly. The imperative is to provide available aid when and where it is practical to do so.

An inability to compel support for a service is not a good reason, on its own, to deny essential aid; so long as the service is available and capable, it should provide essential aid to those who need it wherever doing so is practical. If the service is not capable of providing the aid sustainably and has no ability to compel support, that's a serious problem. I'm not sure even then that South Fulton's solution is the best available.

[JVS]

96. You keep calling the actions absurd. Why? I find them perfectly reasonable.

In fact, I've demonstrated the reasoning behind them. Just because you do not like what happened does not make the result unreasonable.

What is your solution? How do you solve the free rider problem and ensure that not only is P1<P2 but that it is enough less than P2 that few would choose P2.


edited: to fix a sign

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Why I support TAXES levied equally so

civil servants can do their job.

So this stupidity don't happen.

By the way I guess it is pretty humid in TN... you allowed this stupidity in Cali, especially during the hot santa annas, and the fire will soon be at the coast.

STOOPID is, STOOPID DOES.

:banghead:

THIRTY years of propaganda have worked. IT IS ZOXIALISM I TELL YA!

[JVS]

23. I'm absolutely fine with this no longer being a choice.

But what I'm not ok with is the idea that the public services have to offer a choice and then protect people from the stupidity of their choice and thereby exacerbate the free rider problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Subscription fire services should be ilegal

and lord knows I know that would "kill" the MO for many a volunteer fire department. This was not a volunteer crew, for starters.

But treating this as a bidness decision in the 21st century is alien to me... foreign. And the people who told me yesterday that I just don't get wingnut mentality, they are right. I don't. It is a foreign country, and that is the kind of mentality that is now dominating policy at ALL levels. See education, see health care. I could go on.

Oh well... this once was a great country... welcome to third world status. Soon all public services will be by subscription, how Chile of us. And I CANNOT JUSTIFY IT.

I guess the moral center of this country is different from where I grew up.

[JVS]

28. We cannot reap what is not sown. If "choice" to pay bills is offered then the services...

cannot operate as though they are fully supported.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. I am sorry, having DONE the Emergency Services shtick

I just don't get it... PERIOD. It is an alien country., You justify them all you want... I can't.

Though to add, it does 'xplain Katrina in ways that are much clearer now.

[hayu_lol]

34. Aside from this fee...

who in Tennessee pays anything toward the upkeep and training of a Kentucky fire dept?

This one homeowner chose not to pay $1.44 a week for fire protection service despite being asked to participate by letters, phone calls, and a personal call by the chief.

The neighbor paid the fee. When the fire crossed the property line, the fire department put the fire out.

The anger against the fire department may just trigger that Kentucky town to shut down any help for Tennessee areas in the future.

Tennessee is an odd state:

Used lanterns until the rest of the US chipped in and electrified them.
Now asking the feds to provide water systems(where none exist)because the streams have dried up.

Why didn't the homeowner, who started the fire, get his pets out?

Local fire departments usually do not cross state lines.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Having crossed INTERNATIONAL boundaries

due to mutual aid agreements, I call BS on that.

Yes, fire departments cross state lines. There is an obvious MUTUAL AID agreement in place here.

And the solution is simple A TAX, a FIRE DISTRICT tax.

You can go on now. Alien country indeed.

[hayu_lol]

43. Fire district tax was voted down in this Tennessee county...

County commissioners did not make any sort of arrangement with any out of state fire service to cover their needs.

Apparently there is no Federal Service in the area.

In this case, the matter was put to the voters and they said NO TAXES.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Fine, you win

I cannot comprehend that part of the country. IT IS ALIEN to me.

It is NOT the US, or the values I am familiar with

It is a foreign country.

ONCE, and it will happen, somebody dies, the county will probably be taken over by federal receivership... and then they will really scream. TAXES, EVIL, COMMIES. We are truly NOT part of the same nation.

Increasingly this feels more like a third world country, or the US just prior to the civil war. So here we go again, and I am not shitting anybody.

On the bright side, once the empire finally retrenches, this "nation" will fall apart.

And no, I am not kidding... and seeing what they do, I cannot wait.

[DURHAM D]

32. Maybe you should factor the home owner's wise decision to carry homeowners insurance.

The home owner will be made whole (or nearly whole) by his insurance carrier. Therefore, he made a very rational decision not to pay the $75 because he had the situation covered elsewhere.

Those crying over his poor decision and sending him money (the purpose of his interview) need to know more before they are made a fool of. His family (son) had previously had a fire up the road and had not paid into the fire system that has been in place for 20 years. Now this guy's grandson starts a fire at grandpa's house. Did this same kid start a fire at his dad's house? The old man had all sorts of indicators that fire is a possibility because it happened in his own family and still he lets a kid burn debris in his yard. To say the old dude has poor risk management skills beyond question. I would be willing to bet the neighbors think this family is careless at best and perhaps dangerous.

I would be willing to bet that most of the people who don't like the city's policy don't pay property taxes and know nothing about the disparity between taxes in the city and county. These people are arguing "theory" not the fact situation on the ground.

[JVS]

33. Yeah, I noticed that in the article.

kind of fishy, eh?

[DURHAM D]

37. Yep - everyone is feeling sorry for someone who I think doesn't give a shit about his neighbors.

If he did he would not be burning or he would have a more controlled burn.

A burn that gets out of control is not well accepted in any neighborhood/township. I can list every out of control burn and the last name of the person who started it in my township for the past century. Neighbors don't forget this sort of thing and they deeply resent it.

[JVS]

38. I cannot urge you strongly enough to craft an OP about this.

It would most certainly enliven the board.
:popcorn:

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Ok let's clarify

some of us are not feeling sorry about the actual person that lost all.

We are appalled at this practice.

I mean it is so damn 18th century it is not even funny.

Sorry, if you cannot get that. Then again, I cannot comprehend it either. It is like we are talking about two different countries. In fact, we are.

We might be typing English, but we are not communicating. Values are 180 from each other.

[DURHAM D]

49. "Sorry, if you cannot get that."

What a smug moral highgrounding assumption...

You don't know anything about me and you know nothing about my values. I have not, and will not, discuss theory with you because you are running to every thread and conflating policy and fact. Obviously you think you are smarter and better than anyone who just sticks with the facts.

Do you pay property taxes?

Are you aware of and able to articulate the difference between the city and county governmental structures?

Are you aware of the differentials in the property tax structures?

Are you aware of the institutional barriers between the two entities?

Do you or have you ever lived in a small town or a rural community?

Have you ever seen county dwellers go crazy when their neighborhood is annexed to a city because they don't want to pay higher taxes and don't want those damn city services?

I can run out the policy arguments far better than you can as to how things should be but I won't. We live in a representative democracy and the majority of folks in that county either agree with or made the policy. Since you are so pissed about it why don't you move there and start a reform movement for the county to get their own fire department? Good luck cause they don't want it but since you do, have at it.

Perhaps you can change the country one county at a time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Perhaps you should just put me on ignore

since I am ruining threads for ya.

What a way to not discuss things and conflate issues...

Have a good fucking life...

PLUNK

[jesus_of_suburbia]

98. "What a smug moral highgrounding assumption... "

I enjoy reading nadinbrzezinski's posts (and I've even said so),


but I've always thought she/he is smug and arrogant (I'd be shocked to find those who know her/him in real life don't agree).

[GSLevel9]

42. bottom line...

if you put out all fires, even for people who have chosen to decline fire protection...

then no one will EVER pay the $75 fee.

SOMEONE has to pay for the firefighters wages, the fire house, food, supplies, equipment and vehicles, etc...

And if you're OUTSIDE of a city limits you're not financing the fire dept.



Like MANY have said...



If Blue Cross Blue Shield lets you buy health insurance AFTER a diagnosis or accident... NO ONE will buy health insurance.

[Amonester]

50. So, if I wouldn't have saved the two 5 y-olds who jumped the fence illegally...

from drowning in the deep end at the public pool I was working at, while I happened to be alone in there, making a 'cake' (filters) downstairs, when I was lucky enough to hear their little voices scream for help through the loud electric pumps noises, which prompted me to run like hell upstairs and jump to their rescue, without a stupid second thought like "well, these two kids (brother-sister twins) didn't obey the Do-Not-Enter rules posted at the entrance AND they also didn't PAY the money they are required to pay to get in, so why should I bother saving their little lives? After all, their upcoming death will sure TEACH a lesson to all the other kids who ever happened to think they could jump the fence without PAYING too. So there."

Such an idiotic thought never crossed my mind. Thank goddess...

The lesson is: SOME PEOPLE CAN'T COPE WITH SOME RULES. Not a majority of people just don't have the 'means' to cope with all rules, but when some of them cannot, and emergencies HAPPEN, the smarter ones don't ask themselves idiotic questions, they act to save the lives first, and will go on to deal with whatever other problems of who's paying for what later.

There.

[JVS]

53. The kid drowning in the pool has nothing to do with the problem of funding a public service.

Way to be totally off topic!

[Amonester]

58. Ok. Some people cannot 'get it'.

No matter what.

[JVS]

62. I'm sure you can get it if you think about it.

Maybe this link will help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_problem
"Public goods provide a very important example of market failure, in which market-like behavior of individual gain-seeking does not produce efficient results. The production of public goods results in positive externalities which are not remunerated. If private organizations don't reap all the benefits of a public good which they have produced, their incentives to produce it voluntarily might be insufficient. Consumers can take advantage of public goods without contributing sufficiently to their creation. This is called the free rider problem, or occasionally, the "easy rider problem" (because consumer's contributions will be small but non-zero).
The free rider problem depends on a conception of the human being as homo economicus: purely rational and also purely selfish—extremely individualistic, considering only those benefits and costs that directly affect him or her. Public goods give such a person an incentive to be a free rider.
For example, consider national defense, a standard example of a pure public good. Suppose homo economicus thinks about exerting some extra effort to defend the nation. The benefits to the individual of this effort would be very low, since the benefits would be distributed among all of the millions of other people in the country. There is also a very high possibility that he or she could get injured or killed during the course of his or her military service.
On the other hand, the free rider knows that he or she cannot be excluded from the benefits of national defense, regardless of whether he or she contributes to it. There is also no way that these benefits can be split up and distributed as individual parcels to people. The free rider would not voluntarily exert any extra effort, unless there is some inherent pleasure or material reward for doing so (for example, money paid by the government, as with an all-volunteer army or mercenaries).
In the case of information goods, an inventor of a new product may benefit all of society, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for the invention if they can benefit from it for free."

[Amonester]

71. 'free riders' constitute a minority and the majority (the 'free smarters')

easily understand that it is being 'personally responsible' to accept that reality and consciously accept to be 'compassionately responsible' in paying 'somewhat a little more' in order to 'cover' for these 'annoyances' when they can afford it (like in 'the rich must pay their fair share of TAXES' and like in 'BUFFET said: Make Me Pay More Taxes')

BUH-BYE

[JVS]

129. In the county in question free riders are 50% of the population.

This is not a sustainable system.

[DURHAM D]

59. Amen. nt

[MadHound]

57. First of all, you're not factoring in all the variables.

You're leaving out insurance rates.

If you live in an area that depends upon a volunteer fire department, your insurance rates are going to vary depending upon the type of fire department.

If your FD is on a subscription only basis, and will let the house burn down if your you miss a payment, no matter whether or not you pay your subscription fee, your insurance rates are going to be higher, much higher.

If you live in such a district as mentioned above, and you don't pay said fee, your rates will be even higher.

If you live in a district where the FD will put out the fire, no matter whether you've paid or not, your insurance rates will be much lower.

If you live in such a district and pay your fees, your rate will drop further.

If you live in a district that uses taxes to fund the volunteer fire department, your rates are that much lower.

If you live in a district that uses taxes to fund the department and pays the firefighters, ie a professional department, your rates are much lower.

The fire department that let the house burn due to lapsed fees is forcing the residents of that entire district to pay higher insurance premiums. That's simply wrong.

And from a moral point of view, from a professional point of view, from the point of view of one who was a volunteer firefighter for a number of years, what that fire department did is simply inexcusable. It goes against everything that firefighters stand for, and I imagine that the vast majority of firefighters feel the same way.

You don't let a house burn, you don't leave people to suffer. You do what it takes and then sort out the money part. If nothing else, you bill the people for your services, and if they refuse to pay, take them to court.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. +1000

I wish I COULD recommend your post.

As a fellow emergency worker you get it... I am appalled at seeing a crew sitting in the cab.

[MadHound]

63. I'm a bit more than appalled, frankly I want to go all Skittles on them and kick their ass

There is no excuse for letting a house burn, for a family to suffer.

[DURHAM D]

65. Seems you are failing to recognize that the county residents

made the choice not to have a fire department thus increasing their own insurance rates.

Do you think they don't have the right to self-determination?

[MadHound]

72. In many rural areas, it is impossible to form a professional fire department

Certain criteria have to be met. Thus, they are forced to go with a subscription based volunteer fire department.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that it is entirely up to that volunteer fire department to decide whether or not they'll let a house burn based on whether or not fees were paid. That wasn't a decision undertaken by county residents, that was done solely and unilaterally by the fire department. It was they who forced the rates even higher.

Don't you think that in such situations, where one decision effects all members of the county, that the residents should at least be consulted before raising rates?

[DURHAM D]

77. Not really following your logic.

The fire department that was present was a city fire department - not a volunteer fire department. The city offered services to county residents when the county could not fund a department. County homeowners could opt in or opt out for a small fee.

"That wasn't a decision undertaken by county residents, that was done solely and unilaterally by the fire department."

The county residents had a say in the matter. And, the city fire department does not make policy decision - the city government does. You are just making stuff up.

[Abq_Sarah]

97. The residents of the county made the decision

For the last 20 years by electing council members who would not vote to either fund a volunteer department or tax county residents to pay South Fulton and other municipalities to put out their fires.

[TheKentuckian]

70. Society breaks down completely at this endpoint. No thanks whatever the equation says.

[Vickers]

86. I was told there would be no math.

:blush:

[JVS]

88. Oh, there will be math!

There is always math!
:-)

[Rex]

99. You support the FD not doing its job. Fine.

DU is full of socially regressive people. Look out 20th century!

[JVS]

100. The FD did it's job. It puts out fires for people in the community that supports it and the...

people in the adjacent county that subscribe to their services for a reasonable fee of $75

[Rex]

105. No they stood by and watched the house burn = failure.

Fire fighter = put fires out.

[KansasVoter]

101. Do not use logic here. Does not work!

[Iterate]

102. Absolutely horrific.

I can only hope you have not thought through the implications of your rational consumer exercise. I don't know where to begin.

People have been dealing successfully with the free-rider problem since the formation of the first household, so don't think you've discovered it. I know of no society or organization, even the most authoritarian, which stamped it out completely for more than a brief time. If anyone has a counter example, I'd be interested. And so what? Since none (it seems) have stamped it out, prosperous and peaceful societies must have learned to deal with it without bringing on their downfall.

The assumption seems to be that the nation lacks the imagination to do anything other "let it burn", so I'll skip it.

Only four Variables? Fine, move on. P(price), money, it's an index of the value, a social index, and like any social index from money to test scores it will be manipulated by someone who benefits. In fact, every variable you use can be manipulated. They are not pristine, and they are repeated, recursively, like a market and with non-linear consequences.

That brings up another point: libertarians and rational model theorists tend to ignore or discount political and social power.

In other words, give me the list of those who haven't paid, a week, and a box of matches and I can guarantee your free-rider problem will be solved. Triple your prices, won't matter. You'll have so much fear indexed into that price, they'll pay anything. Give me the list, matches, and another month, and I'll guarantee no one will live in that town unless you give the OK. Businesses too, Ooops, we have no record of your payment.

So what's next, a free market solution? Another list, another calculation with more market variables, another fire company with lower prices? Doesn't matter, I'll cut their hoses, it's been done before.

Give me the list, hell, sell me the list, and I'll own the county.

Absolutely horrific.

There are very good reasons why we don't starve our children when they get lazy about doing the dishes, why we volunteer for no good reason, or why we might even have socialized, equitable fire service. Exchange models don't measure them well, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

So here's a new exercise: run the model from the counties' point of view against the cost of free-ridership. Index everything under the sun, the cost of resultant divorces, lost wages and tax base, crime, pollution, a death or two, drug sales, cost of matches, more police, gun sales, the park you had to close, mental health, everything you can think of and then see where the sums lead. And not just dollar costs, but the intangibles too. You won't get it right, but even getting within an order of magnitude would be great.

And from that I'm pretty sure you'd arrive at a conclusion that's similar to the one that lasting and peaceful cultures have guessed for millenia: that the social values people carry in their heads, like compassion, tolerance, cooperation, and community are dirt cheap insurance compared to the alternative.

[OneGrassRoot]

106. And what happens when someone HAS paid and it's not posted properly...

Mistakes happen all the time; we make payments and it's not posted properly, or in a timely manner.

I'd hate to have that mistake on my hands...showing up and not rendering the service because accounting says they didn't pay.

But they did.

I believe humanitarian services always need to take care of the emergency first; deal with the financial aspects later. This opt in/opt out stuff is dangerous.

[JVS]

107. Ooohhh. Then they have a lawsuit on their hand.

[LanternWaste]

113. After the fire and possible injuries and/or deaths.

" Then they have a lawsuit on their hand."

After the fire and possible injuries and/or deaths. Not a great trade off to me, but I understand it may excite many people.

[Pholus]

125. Provided they paid their $150.00 court access fee, you mean... ;)

[JVS]

126. LOL

[Pholus]

128. Despite my carping, I kind of get what you're saying...

but it is just too hard to want to accept that this is the way things have to go! I guess I'm just too much of a bleeding heart.

Or, as I tell my conservative friends, I was just too indoctrinated in cold war propaganda -- I really bought that our country was as superior and moral and good-hearted as it said it was. Silly me.

[LanternWaste]

110. I would imagine if a county legislated a ban on homosexual behavior

I would imagine if a county legislated a ban on homosexual behavior, or on inter-racial marriages, we would have posters throwing up their hands and righteously proclaiming, "oh well, that's what the residents voted in, nothing we can do", rather than viewing it in its totality as a moral and ethical dilemma that should be addressed by all people-- regardless of county or state... or even country.

[activa8tr]

118. Excellent point! Very well stated

I wish people would somehow get a bit of knowledge before they go for the extremist populist arguments all the time.

Let's have the (white) farmers ONLY get to vote on slavery again in Mississippi and Alabama. If we want state by state decisions on best practices in public safety, why not put up slavery every year state by state, too?

I bet slavery would be back in a single election in a few states. Leave it to the readers to guess which ones.

[JVS]

121. Is there some kind of ridiculous analogy contest going on today?

[activa8tr]

116. You left OUT the

:sarcasm: icon!

I'm sure you were joking, but few people got your joke.

[JVS]

117. It's not the ideal way to run a public service, but I've learned that sometimes one is limited by...

the political constraints of the voting public. I've seen worse when it comes to health care.

[activa8tr]

119. Your point? I'm sorry, you lost me. You mean to say that you

actually believe that your equation is good public policy?


So only able-bodied people by and large go to the polls and vote against socialized medicine?

[JVS]

120. I believe my equation describes the decision making of the individual homeowners.

As you pointed out, it is somewhat simplified (especially since the probability of payment of a fee varies with the size of the fee), but generally it's a reasonable sketch of the price comparisons. If P2 is not made clearly larger than P1, there will be people opting not to pay for the coverage.

Personally, I'd levy a tax and force coverage, but it seems that Obion County voters don't want that. Since they've made such a bed, let them sleep in it.

[activa8tr]

122. "Since they've made such a bed, let them sleep in it"

"Since they've made such a bed, let them sleep in it"

Bolding by me.

First of all: "THEY" implies that this poor homeowner voted that way, which, of course, we can NEVER PROVE!!!

We don't know if he voted, nor if he voted in the affirmative, and can never prove if he did or did not!

Second: Voters who vote against their own interests are protected from harm in many cases. Those that vote for tax reductions still get to send their children to school, are afforded police, fire, libraries, etc.

Libraries might close, but the public safety is not going to dry up and go away.

To be insensitive to the loss of a homeowner's home, possessions, let alone pets......and chalk it up to "the vote"......knowing how many foolish voters there are that vote against their own best interests......you want this guy to suffer because of foolish voters, (of which he MAY OR MAY NOT be one)?

You and Hitler have a lot in common in your assessment of the proper consequences of voter foolishness and fear.

[JVS]

123. This homeowner lived in a county that decided not to do a thing about fire protection.

While we could say that he is not responsible for that, he has also decided not to buy coverage, despite the fact that three years ago he also had a fire without being covered and they put it out anyway he still has decided to press his luck and go without coverage. Sorry, he's had plenty of warning and even a close call and he decided to be fucking moron.

[activa8tr]

127. So, your "final answer" is..................screw him!

Let's have the same attitude for drunk drivers.......police and EMT's should just let them die in the car wreck.

Fire departments should just let the houses burn of people who rent in a tax scofflaw, even if they don't know their landlord didn't pay the taxes.

I cannot believe you think this "fee" system is justifiable, since it's in place, by voter decision. Slaves should serve their masters because the masters voted for it.

Somebody didn't pay $75 for something he felt was unfair, for whatever reason, so screw him! Yeah, that makes sense, not ethical sense, but to you, people are expendable if they make bad decisions. Let them all suffer! Yeah, that sounds about right.

And if we decided that YOUR decision-making was faulty, should YOU suffer, too? Just because WE decided it was faulty, let's just ban you from the DU. That would be OKAY with you? The same logic would apply; we think that you're just not thinking right, so we let you go, who should care?

[Pholus]

124. I so hate that phrase....

my bagger relatives use it all the time. In my darker moments I sometimes have the same "the suckers have it coming" thoughts but usually I realize that I have to be better than that or I'm as worthless as they are.

At some point when we're all wondering what happened to the public commons we'll wake up and realize we really don't have time to worry about other people because our day-to-day lives suck so bad. And then the libertarians will have won.

Fun thoughts for the evening.

[backscatter712]

130. Again. Fire departments are not insurance companies.

They're not in the business of calculating risks, crunching the numbers on actuarial tables, charging premiums or denying services the same way Aetna denies chemo to cancer patients.

Fire departments are a government service, available to all residents, and their job is to put fires out and protect public safety, PERIOD!

I'm tired of this Ayn Rand bullshit.

[JVS]

131. I'm not modeling departmental behavior. I'm modeling the homeowner's cost analysis.

[Skidmore]

135. How totally devoid of community spirit and humanity is that?

At the most basic level, a community joins together to protect its members and keep them safe...all contribute. Then there are those who use algorithms or coin tosses.

[JVS]

136. "all contribute" except apparently the people who don't feel like ponying up for the service