It would be interesting to see the reactions if the neighbor's house had completely burned down as well from the spread of the fire.

Then maybe people would realize that an effective fire department can't be selective in what fires it puts down. You can't have an effective fire department paid with optional taxes.

True, but most people are sadly cheapskates.

Maybe, but I think it reflects even more negatively on the country, which presents itself as civilized but can't guarantee the most basic of services to its citizens. Things like setting up military bases around the world are, in practice, guaranteed by the taxes Americans pay, but such a primary thing as fire protection isn't.

Ponder on that for a while...

True, but this is mainly a reflection of the genral atitude of many Americans (who hate taxes so much that they're willing to give up on public services like fire protection).

Do you have a bunch of money? I sure don't,I'm a cheapskate,I'll blow money every now and again,but most of the time I try to save money.

were they private firefighters? It makes sense,if this is the case. They still should have tried to put out the fire. Why not go further and pay a monthly fee for a private police force. lol

No they were government firefighters.  They worked for the government of the city though.

Not the county or anything.

I do agree here.  Besides requiring firefighters watch fires burn by the unpaid person, and not acting as trained, the policy (and I will say default of the county) puts the firefighters in a place where they are at increased risk because they don't get to tackle the problem early enough on.  The fire could jump in multiple directions at once and things get out of hand.  And yes, you can take to task the person who didn't pay.  Anyone here also think it is sane that we train firefighters to do fire management that will cause a fire to not spread, but cause the house of someone else who doesn't pay to burn down as a "lesson" to others in society and them?

I think it's sane.  Based on the cities other options.

I mean, the city only has two other options.

1)  Put out fires for free for people who don't pay the subscription fee... and therefore not have enough funding like the other fire departments that do so.

2) Do not respond to fires at all outside of their city.

Both options do nothing but insure the lack of a fire department for anybody.

In relation to this, one would have to wonder what the odds would be of an insurance company insuring a guy who doesn't pay to have fire protection.