@WestRiverrat And while that is a fine summary of the problem, it doesn’t tell us the solution. My suggestion was for the areas outside of the city to pay for the fire department up front through their taxes rather than making it optional. That way, we don’t have any more situations like this. Alternatively, there was the point made by @Nullo and myself that if the city is really serious that they are okay with people paying some years and not others and only getting fire service in those years when they have paid, then they have no logical response to why they won’t let people call up and say “I’ll pay now, and I’ll even pay double—just come to my house.” Even if you and I agree that this is not the optimal solution, nothing that the city has used as an argument in favor of this policy explains why they do not allow this. I’m all for making people pay for fire service. I’m just not in favor of using mob tactics to enforce it.
@jca If we are both expected to pay and one of us doesn’t while still reaping the benefits, the other should still pay because it’s the right thing to do. Both should pay, and the fact that one doesn’t cannot remove the responsibility of the other. That’s how things like the tragedy of the commons get started. Indeed, the situation we are discussing is one of those that shows exactly why rational self-interest is a poor model to be used as the exclusive basis for both moral and social reasoning.
Surely it is a truism that two wrongs don’t make a right. It is also a truism that you doing something wrong doesn’t justify me doing something wrong. These truisms hold regardless of subject matter, so trying to make an exception for money won’t work. And this is where the comparison to murder comes in. You want to make a distinction that I do not think can be made. If we have to deny one of these truisms with regard to money, there’s no logical reason not to deny it for murder as well.
There are emotional reasons and rhetorical reasons to want to keep them separate, but no good logical reasons to justify the separation. And that’s the problem: to allow one is to logically allow the other. But we don’t want to allow both, so we cannot allow either. Some other solution to the problem will have to be found.
@phaedryx The thing is, this has happened before. It didn’t scare everyone into paying then, so I don’t see why it would now. Nor do I think it would be justified for the city to say “and let that be a lesson to the rest of you!” Those would be mob tactics, it seems to me.
As I said way back in my second answer, I understand where the city is coming from. There is a genuine problem that the city needs to solve, this is what they came up with, and a sufficient number of people seem to think that it is the best solution available. I just happen to disagree with the city on a few of the finer points.