|
|
|
|
|
by jdmichal
4681 days ago
|
|
> If they refuse to pay, their land isn't seized (as is the case now,) they merely have to assume the fire risk. The problem being, of course, that fire has a habit of not staying put. This kind of idea becomes even more ridiculous if you apply it to police service instead. Are they not going to arrest the criminals because the person didn't pay their quarterly police stipend? Do they get arrested after they step off the property, and the stolen goods just auctioned off? There is a societal benefit to having these services, so therefore society as a whole is requested to pay. |
|