You're ignoring the detail of insurance. I elsewhere point out examples of other government services that allow people to pay the costs if they don't pay the fee/purchase insurance, but the fact remains that insurance works differently by definition.
You're ignoring that in almost every other instance where you could have had insurance, you receive assistance and pay the price.
This is not insurance, this is a protection racket.
EDIT: By protection racket I mean this: I think in this scenario there is little distinction in letting something bad happen when it is well within your ability to stop it and making something bad happen.
"If you don't pay up I'm not going to be able to stop Vito over here from breaking your legs if he tries to break your legs..."
A protection racket is when you pay to avoid damages, lest someone from the vendor incur those very same damages to you in retaliation for not paying. The fire department didn't set the fire.
Also, a "protection racket" is when some thugs retaliate against you if you don't pay them, not when people refuse to provide a service you've previously refused to pay for.
I also have a dim view of the laws of the Alaskan city, but there's no call to throw around accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" and such just because you're angry, too.
Insurance does work. It worked in this case: The neighbors houses were saved. But when insurance is the ONLY means by which a burning house can be saved we should rethink how we treat emergencies.
Yes. People should not be allowed to build residences in areas that don't have suitable fire coverage; the fees and taxes required to enlist surrounding communities into protecting them should be mandatory.
Well, most people that live in an area that doesn't have fire coverage know this and understand it. I guess these people didn't (or maybe when your house is one fire you forget). What I am saying is as long as you understand this everything is fine, for both sides.
