I'm not sure if anyone else hear about this story, but it's an interesting situation to evaluate how much intervention the government should have vs. letting free markets decide how to handle certain situations. For those that don't want to read the article, here's the gist of it: In a rural Tennessee county, people are offered fire protection for their homes for the price of $75 per year. One man chose not to pay the fee and then his house caught fire. The fire department refused to come until his neighbor (who did pay the fee) called because his field caught fire. Upon arriving at the scene, the fire fighters helped out the neighbor, but did nothing while the man's home burned to the ground. I'm a bit torn about how things should have been handled. On the one hand, the guy was a careless and a freeloader and he should have known the potential consequences of refusing to pay the fee. He basically gambled that his house would not catch fire and lost. Now, he's out one house. On the other hand, I believe common sense dictates that once the firefighters had arrived, it would have been beneficial to everyone to just put the fire out. I know he didn't pay the fee before, but they could have saved his house and then charged him for all the years he refused to pay and then some and he probably still would have come out ahead. I'm curious as to what other people think. Was this the correct way to handle the situation? Should more government services be run this way? Do things change depending on whether lives are on the line or if it's just property that's in danger?