> This is the world libertarians envision I almost can't hear you over the strawman klaxon. EDITED to add (@1h): Sorry, I hate these one liners, I should ela

> This is the world libertarians envision I almost can't hear you over the strawman klaxon. EDITED to add (@1h): Sorry, I hate these one liners, I should elaborate. First, there is the grinding irony of highlighting the doings of a government body as a libertarian vision. I'm not sure exactly what a libertarian fire brigade would look like, but it must likely wouldn't have a monopoly over the high-density, thus profitable, city and indemnity to screw over the less profitable rural areas. Second, you speculate on the victim's hypothetical poorness. However, in the article it's stated unambiguously that they had made a conscious decision to forego the fire brigade subscription. I see the practicality, but I struggle with the ethics of forcing them to pay for a service they've made a conscious decision they don't want. Finally, and a little off-topic, there's a the question of contents insurance. If you've decided that the fire brigade isn't for you, you most likely did not take out insurance for the contents of what looks like a mobile home. A fire in a mobile home, even when doused with water, is unlikely to leave you very many useful possessions. Never mind the structure itself, which is likely to be a write-off, even if only half burned down. Given this, I assume you are as vigorous in campaigning for universal contents insurance as you are in blaming this family's fate on libertarians? Or are you happy with people loosing all their things, as along as the government makes sure to pour water on them (for free) first?