if the the world is full of "jerks, freeloaders and ingrates," when discussing pay-for-services, then logically, the Cranicks are "jerks, freeloaders and ingrates" because they had not paid (whether it was a slip of the mind, due to lack of finances, or for whatever reason."

But, when does it all end? Where do we draw the line in a fee-for-service? Hypothetically, what happens if the Cranicks did not pay their yearly service, but grandma or 2 year old billy-bob was still in the house when flames engulfed the same, and the firefighters let the house burn down? And why are firefighters put in the position of determining if someone is "in good standing" before they pull out their hoses?

What if police departments were on a fee-for-service? What happens to the rape victim that did not pay her yearly fee? Or the elderly couple that are on a fixed income that could not pay their fee and their home was invaded?

Where do we draw the line?

The NYT editorial today:

The many things government undeniably can and must do — and individuals cannot — includes putting out fires that threaten the community. The conservative commentator Glenn Beck insisted the issue is not one of “compassion, compassion, compassion,” but of paying the $75. Putting out the fire absent the annual fee would have left the Cranicks “sponging off” neighbors who had paid, he said, and invited others to shirk their fees. The South Fulton Fire Department ingloriously made the same point, turning on the hoses when the fire spread to the field of a neighbor who was, yes, in good standing.

If county and city officials are that mistrustful of their constituents, they need to find a more guaranteed source of financing, even if it means collecting more taxes. The firefighters who declined to do their duty need, at a minimum, to examine their consciences.