Ayn Rand Conservatism at Work -- Firefighters Let Family's House Burn Down Because Owner Didn't Pay $75 Fee
Talk of limited government is appealing until you see what it actually means in practice: a society in which it's every man for himself.
October 4, 2010 |


Thanks to 30 years of right-wing demagoguery about the evils of “collectivism” and the perfidy of “big government” -- and a bruising recession that’s devastated state and local budgets -- we’re getting a peek at a dystopian nightmare that may be in our not-too-distant future. It’s a picture of a society in which “rugged individualism” run amok means every man for himself.

Call it Ayn Rand’s stark, anti-governmental dream come true, a vision that last week turned into a nightmare for Gene Cranick, a rurual homeowner in Obion County, Tennessee. Cranick hadn’t forked over $75 for the subscription fire protection service offered to the county’s rural residents, so when firefighters came out to the scene, they just stood there, with their equipment on the trucks, while Cranick’s house burned to the ground. According to the local NBC TV affiliate, 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.”

The fire chief could have made an exception on the spot, but refused to do so. Pressed by the local NBC news team for an explanation, Mayor David Crocker said, “if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.”

Ironically, Obion County describes itself as a “progressive community.” In a recent report (PDF), town officials wrote:

We continue to recruit new industry .... We’re building new roads and new schools and making improvements in health care, law enforcement and tourism. The implementation of a Regional Airport, the construction of the I-69 corridor through Obion County and improvements to our local infrastructure reflect the commitment of our county commissioner and municipal officials.

But last December, a county commission on which every member is a Republican voted to rescind a resolution passed years earlier that would have established a countywide fire department. Their rationale was, of course, the need to keep taxes low, but according to the county commission report, that decision was penny wise but pound foolish. “Because there is no operational county fire department,” the officials noted, “Obion County has missed the opportunity to actively pursue receipt of FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding.”

Firefighting is perhaps the most frequently cited example of a good that the private sector simply isn’t suited to provide. We now deem the task of putting out fires a “public good” -- something individuals can’t decide to forgo without the potential of hurting others. But as I note in my new book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy, it wasn’t always so. In the early years of our Republic, in cities like Boston and New York, small, privately operated fire brigades vied for property-owners’ business. You’d pay a small fee, and they’d give you a placard to hang on your door identifying you as a client. If a fire did break out, the company would—in theory, anyway—come and douse the flames.

http://www.alternet.org/news/148407/ayn_rand_conservatism_at_work_--_firefighters_let_family%27s_house_burn_down_because_owner_didn%27t_pay_$75_fee/

I read this earlier and I think it is outrageous! What if a patient goes into a hospital that he owes money to and is dying? Do the doctors just stand back and let them die? I think not! These firefighters chose this profession so they should do their job no matter what!

A 1st grader knows what people mean by smaller (limited) government and this in no way reflects that sentiment.

A lot of cities are charging for emergency services now... 75.00 is cheap compared to some...

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=20100228_charge_for_911_calls.htm

I heard that POX defended the mayor.

This is the "less government" that the GOP/T-Baggers are for...

I am gonna make a wild guess and bet this was a volunteer fire department ... gonna make a second wild guess and bet you there is more to the story than was reported. Thats usually the way it is .. Headlines read "Fireman let house burn" facts are "Fireman suspect meth lab in home ... to dangerous to approach" ... (not intended to mean that this guys house was a meth lab .. its just an example)

My mom was a volunteer firefighter and they had to let houses burn to the ground before becasue they could SMELL the chemicals burning with the house. Blatant Meth Lab. Worst is many times those spun out cookers also have a stockpile of weapons and when ammo goes off it makes things very interesting in the wrong way! There was one case I heard of from another firefighter I know that the house was that of a crazy survivalist who kept Dynamite in his basement. Not one single firefighter was allowed within a hundred yards of the house and it went off with a huge bang scattering live ammo, a safe, and stones all over the place and threw a car at the firefighters. The man was arrested for a host of charges after that. Even here in Los Angeles if the house is a suspected Meth lab they will let it burn to the ground and remediate later becasue it is better to burn off the chemicals to dispose of them rather than leave a flooded chemical spill behind.

It is also a fact that if you live in a place where it is served by volunteer firefighters don't piss off your neighbors. You may need their help one day. If the town is mad at you they will watch your house burn and cheer when you leave town.

What happened was the town did not have a volunteer fire department. The home owner KNOWINGLY REFUSED to pay they're homeowners dues and fees and included in those fees was the cost of the fire department service. If you don't buy home owners insurance and your house gets destroyed no one is going to feel sorry for you. This is no different, they made a poor choice and life taught them a harsh lesson as life often does. I bet you they will pay they're dues next time. Don't get me wrong I would have saved the house but I cannot side with the home owner over such a foolish and preventable way to lose your house.

Can you imagine being the person who lost they're house because they refused to pay 75$ a year?

Conservatism teaches people to be responsible for they're actions. Like nature would dictate, it's un natural to pity and cater to the ones unwilling to even save themselves.

I thought emergencies were called such because they are unpredictable. I wonder if anyone had been harmed as a result if the department would have been responsible.


Sad that the bottom line for so much of our society is making a buck, but the homeowner learned a valuable lesson about contracts,,,,,

This fire dept is city. They don't get state money. There is no rural fire dept or volunteer. Their income is based off that money they charge at the start of the year. For most of the city folks it is automatic through the banks and via escrow on their mortgage. Homeowners are told they have to pay and they chose not to. Sad but oh well.

There is that liberal thinking again. lol Trying to find a reason to blame the fire department when the home owner KNOWINGLY REFUSED TO PAY!!! She made a choice and she has to live with it!
At some point you have to learn that there wont always be someone there to wipe your *** for you when you make stupid choices!

What about the guys risking they're lives for her house? Do they not deserve a measly 75$ to put they're lives on the line??

Where do you come up with this thinking you have????

i have a question... what if the neighbors payed the 75 dollars, and it burned down because the first house that the firemen let burn caught it on fire? who does the homeowner sue then?

I dont know, valuing human life above a buck maybe?

a fire is a DANGER to people, not necessarily just the ones who own the home, I would think decency would dictate that one not let a house burn down because of seventy five dollars

my thinking was that the owner should have known better than to not pay the fee AND the firefighters should have had the decency to save the home in SPITE of seventy five dollars(Im sure that fee isnt the only place they get their earnings from)

This part makes me think of animals who eat their own young...welcome to the modern world...

Good question.

Though in this case, it was said that the firefighters did protect the neighbors because they had paid the fee.

seems like any damage would be the fire departments fault... i think...

First of all they did help the HUMANS involved and if she was not willing to save herself then she doesn't deserve it.

It should remind you of a litter of cats and the one's who are determined to get to the milk supply live and those who are to weak or are unwilling to FIGHT to survive die. Thus ensuring that only the best genetics survive and ensuring the success of the species.

But hey what does mother nature know right?? We are humans the supreme beings ! Mother nature doesn't hold a candle to US!!

so where will these humans live, and what of their investment in this home,, hundreds of thousands allowed to go in flames over 75 dollars


good grief, city and state taaxes dont pay the fire department enough for collectors?...lol

they even give people behind on their mortgage a CHANCE to catch up before just putting them on the street over a buck

what does income have to do with genetic superiority? seriously?!!