[kznewman]

The solution of including the cost of fire fighting in the cost of owning the house itself helps fix what I see as the mistake in thinking that I don't benefit from having my neighbors house fire put out.

If volunteer fire fighters are told by the people who they protect that it is ok to watch a house burn (because necessary costs were not covered somehow) then philosophically what is to stop them from not helping when I don't slip them extra money because their labor is volunteer anyway? I think this eats at the soul of the community.

[gaius]

These guys volunteered for a job that might involve getting burnt alive. So I think their value-system likely precludes corruption of that sort.

[anigbrowl]

That'd be nice, but sadly it's not the world we live in. Arson committed by firefighters is a small but expensive problem for the people who run fire departments. http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-141.pd...

Doctors are supposed to be moral paragons too, but every so often one is revealed to be abusing their trust in some horrific fashion.

[gaius]

Were these not part-time volunteer firefighters?

[anigbrowl]

Not necessarily, no. See for example p9, which documents two famous cases involving full-time professionals. Good screening practices seem to help a lot, but as you know perfect security is an unattainable goal.

[kznewman]

My point was not meant to imply they would accept bribes. They do the job to fight fires so why agree with the idea that we should stop them when some equipment was not yet fully amortized? If they accept bribes or not, the idea you stop volunteers from doing what they want (fight fires) is wrong.