I've been reading all kinds of outrage on the internet over this story. A brief summation: Guy lives in a county where they have no fire service. A nearby municipality offers fire protection to individuals who live outside of their jurisdiction, for a $75 annual fee. This guy didn't pay it, and when his house caught fire, the fire department came to ensure the fire didn't spread outside the property line, but didn't attempt to put it out.
I've seen a lot of people say that the firefighters should have put the fire out anyway, and I've seen a lot of people say maybe they didn't have an obligation to, but it shows that this type of system is fucked up and shouldn't be allowed.
I personally don't agree with either stance. I think the firefighters were in the right. It's a shame that the guy's house burned down, but it wasn't their fault. Given the system that exists it's the only logical thing to do. If they allow free riders, the whole system risks collapsing.
As far as the system existing, well, I probably wouldn't buy property in a county with no fire protection, but I acknowledge that it's a person's right to do so, if they choose. This guy chose to buy his house there, and he chose not to pay the fee. It's his risk, he took the gamble and he lost. It sucks, but it's a natural consequence that he was aware of when he made his choice. I think an adult who owns property is capable of making that choice and living with those consequences.
What do y'all think?