No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee (2010)

nbcnews.com

5 pointsblamazon4 comments

Anecdata for the evils of government or the utopia of libertarianism?

This seems cold, but if it didn't work this way, then why would anyone ever pay the $75 ahead of time? For the fire department to be able to afford to keep existing without that, an after-the-fact fee would probably have to be tens of thousands of dollars, which I assume people would find just as cold.

Or they could force everyone to pay, through taxes, and then you don't need to worry if your neighbour didn't pay as that could put you at greater risk.

The homeowner was ready to pay whatever at the time. It would seem to be just good business to offer right-now service at a price that reflects that this had moved from insurance to rescue, high enough to make anyone wish they'd paid for the insurance.

I wonder if the law would allow that, or if the contract would be void as entered into under duress. "My house is buring down" seems like a pretty clear duress scenario in the vernacular sense of the word. But searching around it seems that in contract law duress involves some action by the other party, like a threat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com