What happens when we privatize the fire department? The answer might surprise you.

[#FF0000]

OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.

They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

We asked him why.

He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.

"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.


http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/loca...-104052668.html

Yeah, so, you know, if you're an anarcho-capitalist you're literally the stupidest thing in the world.

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJyjNiL4zZg

The funny thing is right wingers are actually AGAINST the family.

This is the market, this is what happens.

[GPDP]

I'm sure some of those who actually advocate the privatization of fire departments are indeed ignorant and/or naive, but I imagine a lot of them are fully aware of what such a system would entail. They just couldn't care less if a situation like this were to happen.

[Agnapostate]

The amount of time and space spent commenting on these pseudo-anarchists is extremely disproportionate to their relevance. I don't attack you for that; it's a behavior I occasionally participate in myself, for whatever reason. Anyway, fire protection has public good characteristics (non-excludability), in densely populated urban areas, with negative externalities for other homeowners and an inability to confine a house fire to one dwelling and property area, so I don't see how this idea could possibly catch on.

[AK]

Wow this is actually fucking insane.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

glenn beck's position is that using a public service like the fire fighters without paying for it via taxes or yearly fees for home protection is like "sponging" from those who do pay. if you don't contribute you don't get service says glenn.

the vast majority of tax payers take more than they contribute. that means they're sponging off of others. if you wanna send your children to public school, you have to pay just as much in taxes as the millionaires. after all, it costs thousands of dollars a year per student to fund public education and if you don't pay your share you can't use the service. if you only earn minimum wage you can homeschool your children, you parasite!

[RGacky3]

Yet Capitalists sponging on workers? Just the way of the world I guess.

[Nolan]

"Um, is everyone forgetting that this was a public fire department? In the free market, they would have competed for their business."

[Dean]

"Um, is everyone forgetting that this was a public fire department? In the free market, they would have competed for their business."

The idiots who say that miss the point: he forgot to pay what can be compared to an insurance premium. It costs more than 75$ for them to come out and put out a fire. They simply wouldn't have a reason to do it unless they had a different pay scale which would amount to gouging.

[Demogorgon]

The funny thing is that this was posted on another board where we have a few right wingers and one of them genuinely could not understand why we thought that this was ridiculous. He kept insisting that the family had chosen to let their possessions burn by not paying the seventy five dollars and found it impossible to understand why we were against the policy in general. Libertarianism is like mind rot sometimes.

[Lt. Ferret]

shoulda paid.

[Havet]

"If I don't pay taxes, should I take advantage of the public fire department, or is that a different scenario?"

A friend drew that analogy. Any thoughts?

[Lt. Ferret]

i think its realllly fucking shitty that he couldnt pay on the spot, and honestly i dont WANT a privatized fire department, but 75 bucks a year for fire protection is cheaper than what he'd pay for in taxes to the fire department, and im sure them showing up and putting out a fire costs way more than 75 bucks, so its really a pretty good deal if he was smart enough to pay it.

[Agnapostate]

glenn beck's position is that using a public service like the fire fighters without paying for it via taxes or yearly fees for home protection is like "sponging" from those who do pay. if you don't contribute you don't get service says glenn.

Public goods do induce a free rider problem. But that's generally preferable to the consequences of their underprovision.

[Kingpin]

The limitations of the for-profit system have become more apparent.




Surely I am not the only one disturbed at the image of a house being burned to the ground, and having firefighters merely try to contain the fire so it does not spread but do nothing to put out the fire?

They might as well have started the fire themselves.

[IcarusAngel]

71f6B0AqZAU

[Dean]

"If I don't pay taxes, should I take advantage of the public fire department, or is that a different scenario?"

A friend drew that analogy. Any thoughts?

Yeah. He should. There is absolutely no reason not to stop land and improvements from being consumed in flames short of revolutionary conditions.

[revolution inaction]

i think its realllly fucking shitty that he couldnt pay on the spot, and honestly i dont WANT a privatized fire department, but 75 bucks a year for fire protection is cheaper than what he'd pay for in taxes to the fire department,

you got some evidence of that?

[Havet]

Yeah. He should. There is absolutely no reason not to stop land and improvements from being consumed in flames short of revolutionary conditions.

He asks:

"How do you stop the free rider problem then?"

[Che a chara]

A bit off topic .... the right are very adamant on their taxes being cut, so what's the right-wing opinion on privatizing the US military/army ?:)

[Lt. Ferret]

you got some evidence of that?

well i found a link for anecdotal evidence

http://www.marinij.com/ci_16176431


"The basic concern is that we the Marinwood community are already subsidizing the San Rafael Fire Department to the tune of about $300 per household per year, and why should we subsidize them further?" said Walter Dods, a former Marinwood board member who signed the Measure Q opposition argument.

[Dean]

He asks:

"How do you stop the free rider problem then?"
Communists support free riders. It's not a problem to us.

[Lt. Ferret]

well when there are two many free riders your system collapses.

[revolution inaction]

well i found a link for anecdotal evidence

http://www.marinij.com/ci_16176431


"The basic concern is that we the Marinwood community are already subsidizing the San Rafael Fire Department to the tune of about $300 per household per year, and why should we subsidize them further?" said Walter Dods, a former Marinwood board member who signed the Measure Q opposition argument.


from that artical


The proposed increases in San Rafael, Marinwood and adjacent areas would raise the maximum paramedic tax from $85 to $108 for residences and from 11 cents to 14 cents per square foot for commercial properties over a four-year period.
County Service Area 28's Measure M would increase the $40-per-parcel tax by $24 in a 351-square-mile area including San Geronimo Valley, Point Reyes Station, Stinson Beach, Bolinas, Inverness, Tomales and other communities.
In the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority's service area, which covers Larkspur, San Anselmo, Sleepy Hollow, Ross and and adjacent unincorporated areas, the proposed tax measure would keep the rate at $42.50 next year with the potential to raise it $3 each of the three subsequent years. The final rate would not exceed $51.50. In Corte Madera rates would stay at $60 next year and increase $5 a year for the next three years.
it looks like taxes in america can vary wildly for the same thing, so what evidence do you have that people would have to pay more for the same level of sevice if it were not privert

[Lt. Ferret]

because individually, it costs a fire department more than 75 dollars to ship 6-12 men trained men with full equipment, on a fire truck, to a house and operate a fire hydrant.

im saying i WISH he had been able to pay the 75 bucks there, but he had the oppurtunity to pay it and he declined. i would say putting out a fire out of pocket would cost more like a thousand dollars.

also, 75 dollars a year amounts to $6.25 a month.

[Havet]

Communists support free riders. It's not a problem to us.

"How is that a sustainable model, given that resources are being allocated to members of society which might have not and might not contribute in any degree to the productivity of the same products/services they are using?"

[Apoi_Viitor]

The first Roman fire brigade of which we have any substantial history was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. Marcus Licinius Crassus was born into a wealthy Roman family around the year 115 B.C., and acquired an enormous fortune through (in the words of Plutarch) "fire and rapine." One of his most lucrative schemes took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department. Crassus filled this void by creating his own brigade--500 men strong--which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while their employer bargained over the price of their services with the distressed property owner. If Crassus could not negotiate a satisfactory price, his men simply let the structure burn to the ground, after which he offered to purchase it for a fraction of its value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

I think privatization of the Fire Department has a pretty good track record.

[Nolan]

The first Roman fire brigade of which we have any substantial history was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. Marcus Licinius Crassus was born into a wealthy Roman family around the year 115 B.C., and acquired an enormous fortune through (in the words of Plutarch) "fire and rapine." One of his most lucrative schemes took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department. Crassus filled this void by creating his own brigade--500 men strong--which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while their employer bargained over the price of their services with the distressed property owner. If Crassus could not negotiate a satisfactory price, his men simply let the structure burn to the ground, after which he offered to purchase it for a fraction of its value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

I think privatization of the Fire Department has a pretty good track record.

This is essentially what privatization is: you turn services that should be available to everyone in the community into a legal scam. Then it is justified because those that own the service are simply "satisfying demand."

The example you gave is from a time long before capitalism, but don't tell me the Roman state couldn't have provided that service.

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

America has gone to hell.

[Hiero]

i think its realllly fucking shitty that he couldnt pay on the spot, and honestly i dont WANT a privatized fire department, but 75 bucks a year for fire protection is cheaper than what he'd pay for in taxes to the fire department, and im sure them showing up and putting out a fire costs way more than 75 bucks, so its really a pretty good deal if he was smart enough to pay it.


The point is, you help someone when something severe happens. Thoose fire fighters and the chief personally choose not to help.

I am also sure they could have a policy to charge someone after the fire for the use of the service, even if they charge the full price of costs. If they don't pay this late fee the fire deparment can send it on to debt collectors and can come legal issues. I am not saying this ideal, but even in their model the principle still stands, the user pays for the service.

After 9/11, we heard all this bullshit about volunteerism. That American spirit didn't last that long.

[∞]

shoulda paid.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFFTIVerC-58R3D7CGzFhy7wbBBdWXCmKiGdYAl9Fr9PCfeYE&t=1&usg=__8WfkQtmGWlLmKi0kEw3A5mXLCMM=

[∞]

"How is that a sustainable model, given that resources are being allocated to members of society which might have not and might not contribute in any degree to the productivity of the same products/services they are using?"

We don't follow the viscous cycle of the market. Free riders have nothing to ride. Its up to people to acknowledge the free-riders.

[La Comédie Noire]

I have no problem with free riders either, probably because they don't exist.

[Plagueround]

Regardless of any political spin one puts on this, setting your pet ideologies aside, it strikes me as irresponsible to sit with fire equipment on hand and watch a house burn. It would be interesting to see how this story would be played had the fire suddenly exploded and taken out more property or even people.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This is quite odd, I used to live in a neighborhood with a private fire dept, but they would certainly respond if they were the closest. You usually had to pay a higher fee afterwards, unless it was a situation were the public fire dept couldnt respond at all (it was an affluent area so dont feel too bad).

I wonder if someone had the bright idea of 'setting an example' in order to get people to pay up? Thankfully nobody died here.

Also, doesn't it seem like in a system like the one here, a $75 flat rate is ridiculous? So the guy living in a modest $60k house pays the same as his boss in a $400k mcmansion? I'm gonna research this.

[Apoi_Viitor]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFFTIVerC-58R3D7CGzFhy7wbBBdWXCmKiGdYAl9Fr9PCfeYE&t=1&usg=__8WfkQtmGWlLmKi0kEw3A5mXLCMM=

Please tell me you don't actually believe that picture, Comrade.

[∞]

Please tell me you don't actually believe that picture, Comrade.

why?

[Apoi_Viitor]

why?

Without money for a bed, it's quite hard to sleep.

Without money, there is no such thing as 'time', or at least, anything outside the time you are obliged to lend to your boss.

Without money its kind of hard to acquire 'knowledge' - which is why class mobility is so low. If you are born into a poor family, you are born into a system with high-crime, shitty education, and few prospects for bettering oneself - that's not really true for the bourgeios though...

It's kind of hard to be 'respected', when you are frowned upon for being poor.

Money can't buy you health? - Why is it that the standard of living is dramatically higher for the wealthy, as opposed to the poor.

It's kind of hard to have a life without money...

I do agree with the last one though...

[∞]

Without money for a bed, it's quite hard to sleep.

Without money, there is no such thing as 'time', or at least, anything outside the time you are obliged to lend to your boss.

Without money its kind of hard to acquire 'knowledge' - which is why class mobility is so low. If you are born into a poor family, you are born into a system with high-crime, shitty education, and few prospects for bettering oneself - that's not really true for the bourgeios though...

It's kind of hard to be 'respected', when you are frowned upon for being poor.

Money can't buy you health? - Why is it that the standard of living is dramatically higher for the wealthy, as opposed to the poor.

It's kind of hard to have a life without money...

I do agree with the last one though...

You don't need books to attain knowledge...don't take it so literally.

[Apoi_Viitor]

You don't need books to attain knowledge...don't take it so literally.

I don't know what we are defining as knowledge, but I'd generally think that a worker who's subjected to a 10 hour work day, doing some crude, monotonous work, is generally going to have less time for 'knowledge', than say, the rich individual who's renting the worker.

[Sir Comradical]

I do blame the firefighters. What a pack of wankers, standing around while a house burns down.

[Conquer or Die]

"How do you stop the free rider problem then?"

Communists view the Capitalist class as the "free riders" and the suggestion is elimination.

Also, you don't have any expectation for trial by jury or retribution if you rape a little girl and that little girl doesn't provide money to the government under the conditions listed.

[Conquer or Die]

I do blame the firefighters. What a pack of wankers, standing around while a house burns down.

They should all be fired.

[RGacky3]

"How do you stop the free rider problem then?"

Theres no evidence that shows that free riders WOULD become a problem.

[Bud Struggle]

I do blame the firefighters. What a pack of wankers, standing around while a house burns down.

You are insulting "wanking" in your comparison. :)

[Ele'ill]

They should all be fired.

:lol: Zing!

[RGacky3]

Following orders my ass, obviously the bigger villans are the ones that make these policies. But if your standing on front of a family who's house are burning for Gods sake be a human.

[Bud Struggle]

Following orders my ass, obviously the bigger villans are the ones that make these policies. But if your standing on front of a family who's house are burning for Gods sake be a human.

I agree. The actualy firefighters would have put out the fire without question. People on top told them not to do it.

You can't blame the actual firefighters themselves.

[Havet]

I agree. The actualy firefighters would have put out the fire without question. People on top told them not to do it.

You can't blame the actual firefighters themselves.

Sorry Bud, but that's like saying you can't blame soldiers for not helping some people traped in a building with fire because people on top told them not to do it.

[#FF0000]

The only excuse they have is if the higher-ups didn't tell them -why- they weren't to put out the fire. If I was in this situation and that was the case, I'd assume it was because there was something extremely dangerous involved.

But if they knew they just didn't pay up, then there's no excuse.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't blame the firefighters, people do shitty things for a paycheck all the time.

Actually I take that back because i'm sure someone will bring up the German Army during World War II.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry Bud, but that's like saying you can't blame soldiers for not helping some people traped in a building with fire because people on top told them not to do it.

Nope. Put me down on the "don't blame the hirelings" side. Workers don't think for themselves--they are not to blame.

That's why they are workers in the first place.

[Bud Struggle]

Hmmm. I That song sucks it is stuck in my brain--I'm singing (with a couple of glasses of Chatneuf du Pape in me) it as I'm going to my daughter's HS football game.

"Viva Crotiatia" sung loudly by a semi drunk parent isn't something most people in Florida enjoy at a HS football game.

But I will press on! gotta go---:D

[Dimentio]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/loca...-104052668.html

Yeah, so, you know, if you're an anarcho-capitalist you're literally the stupidest thing in the world.

This has actually been the case in Hong Kong, at least before. There, families could be forced to pay money for every item in the burning house ^^

[Ele'ill]

It is the firefighter's fault as well. Here's why. They mobilized and got to the fire- put the fucking thing out. If they were not even allowed to leave the station I could take this a bit better.

This situation highlights a very important question- At what point does the public become so complacent that they allow this type of thing or WORSE to happen because 'that's the way it is' 'its not my fault I was told not to help' etc..

[Ele'ill]

It's people standing around watching someone get beaten to death.

That's not community- these fucking assholes that think this is a good idea need to replace every animal in every animal testing center. They'll be happy so long as they're given sun glasses a pina colada and have the weekends to shop.

Talk about fucking stupid- helpless- and pumped full of artificial significance. They might as well be dead.

Fucking christ people piss me off sometimes.


What did the neighbors do? (I can't watch the video on my computer because it's a thinkpad 600 (mid 90's)).

I can imagine people- neighbors- siding with the firefighters and police when the homeowners react adversely- break up of community. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[#FF0000]

Nope. Put me down on the "don't blame the hirelings" side. Workers don't think for themselves--they are not to blame.

That's why they are workers in the first place.

Yeah I mean "Just following orders" is a viable defense in court and everything else after all right.

If they stood by watching an assault happen becuase their boss told them not to interfere, they'd all be charged.

[Conquer or Die]

The firefighters are completely at fault here. I don't see any reasonable excuse. They probably like what they did, that they were teaching a lesson of personal responsibility as everything burned to the ground while they sat around and laughed about it. May they burn in the deep recesses of hell.

[Conquer or Die]

Speaking of conservative ethics for a moment here:

When I was in high school I remember helping my mom carry heavy boxes into the trunk of our car. During this time my mom had employed two house cleaners who lived in a rural area to clean our house once a week. They had just arrived and were waiting in the car while we were lifting these boxes. They were fans of the early CNN Glenn Beck. After it was done my mom was incensed that the man did not offer to help carry these boxes to the car out of gentlemanly duty. My mom would not tolerate men not opening the door for women or the handicapped, not helping carry or lift heavy objects. My silly mother believed in chivalry and thought it right to instill these things into me.

The Republican party and its backers do not believe in values. They believe in protecting their own interests. They believe it is them alone who should benefit, and that this righteous distribution of benefit will be the natural order of things. It is then from this that they can show their empathy, their compassion by giving to the "needy" and by providing things for the people. There is a dualism within this worldview: The first is that they cannot be denied their pleasure and can use whatever means to make their pleasure most significant. And the second is that after their pleasure is most significantly reached they can then use their excess to show values against their pleasure by giving and charity. This is a fallacy I have heard repeated by several sources within the conservative movement. That you can only know a good man by the amount of charity he can throw to the masses after he has already taken what is his - which is whatever he wants it to be. In other words you may rob Peter to pay Paul.

This dubious set of ethics scorns the pillars of conservative philosophy - Aristotle, The Bible, and Augustine. It is the downfall of their movement and their eternal fallacy.

[it_ain't_me]

forgetting the whole ''this was immoral, these firefighters were bad people, this is what capitalism does blah blah blah'' aspect, this was just bad business. i mean honestly, if you can get some people to pay $75 for a firefighter subscription when their house isn't on fire, you could get everyone to pay $7500 when it is. in fact, i actually heard on the news that the neighbors - who were subscribers to the fire service - were offering thousands of dollars if the firefighters would just put out the fire, but they wouldn't take it.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's the system guys, it's always been the system.
Do you blame the workers or capitalists for the horrors of capitalism... or the politicians? You blame the system!
"I don't fault the police" comes to mind here.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/loca...-104052668.html

Yeah, so, you know, if you're an anarcho-capitalist you're literally the stupidest thing in the world.

NYC burned back in the 19'th century because the fire department was privatized. People had to have plackets in front of their home with whatever company logo on it. There was a HUGE tragedy.

More recently this happened in NY-

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/13/nyregion/experiment-in-private-fire-protection-fails-for-a-westchester-village.html?pagewanted=all

LOL @ "anarcho" capitalists.

[Nolan]

NYC burned back in the 19'th century because the fire department was privatized. People had to have plackets in front of their home with whatever company logo on it. There was a HUGE tragedy.

Do you have a source?

[inyourhouse]

The actions of a government run fire department don't show how a private fire department would operate in the same circumstances. A private fire department has an incentive to put out the fire and charge the owner for it due to the profit motive. Let's model that situation. Suppose homeowners faces an p% probability of their house burning down and that in such a situation they will suffer an average loss of $h unless they pay some large fee, $f. They can avoid their house burning down or needing to pay that large fee by paying the yearly subscription fee of $75. Individuals have a preference towards risk (modelled as an increase in expected wealth), r, where r=0.5 means they are risk neutral, 1 > r > 0.5 means they are risk loving, and 0 < r < 0.5 means they are risk averse. The expected wealth from not paying the subscription is equal to r*[p*(h-f) + (1-p)*h] = r*(h - p*f). The expected wealth from paying the subscription is equal to (1-r)*[p*(h-75) + (1-p)*(h-75)] = (1-r)*(h - 75). A firm supplying the fire service needs to charge a fee that is not so low as to lead to people not paying the subscription and risking just paying the fee if their house catches fire, but not so high that an individual would rather allow their house to burn down rather than pay the fee. Thus a firm will maximize profit where (1-r)*(h - 75) = r*(h - p*f):

(1-r)*(h - 75) = r*(h - p*f)
h - 75 - r*h + 75*r = r*h - r*p*f
h - 75 -2*r*h + 75*r = -r*p*f
r*p*f = r*(2*h + 75) + 75 - h
f = (2*h + 75)/p + (75 - h)/r*p

Since f exists and is positive, there is a profit incentive to charge a fee rather than allowing the house to burn down. Now, this discussion is admittedly simplified (we've ignored inter-temporal issues, for example), but there's no reason to expect the conclusion not to hold under more realistic conditions. All I'm essentially saying is that a private fire department wants to maximize profit and charging a fee that's not so low as to make it worthwhile not paying the subscription but not so high as to make it worthwhile letting the house burn down is necessary to do that. Thus a private fire department would have accepted the man's offer to pay anything to save his house.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^You are either REALLY SMART or that's one hell of a pile of BS and I can't tell which. :D

[Kotze]

Now, this discussion is admittedly simplified (we've ignored inter-temporal issues, for example)We have also ignored that the risk of a house catching fire is not disconnected from whether the surrounding houses are on fire. Now, this omission can have several reasons (a brain tumour, for example, or being ideologically uncomfortable with the outcome of a more realistic simulation).

[inyourhouse]

We have also ignored that the risk of a house catching fire is not disconnected from whether the surrounding houses are on fire.

I'm not sure I follow. The model uses a variable, p, for the risk of a house catching fire, so it could take any value (between 0 and 1, of course) and the result would still hold.


Now, this omission can have several reasons (a brain tumour, for example, or being ideologically uncomfortable with the outcome of a more realistic simulation).

There is no need to be so aggressive. If you model the effect your objection would have on the outcome I may be able to understand your position.

[#FF0000]

Thus a private fire department would have accepted the man's offer to pay anything to save his house.

The excuse they used was that it would have set a bad example and then nobody would want to pay until their house was burning down.

[Sir Comradical]

The excuse they used was that it would have set a bad example and then nobody would want to pay until their house was burning down.

Yes and I'm guessing this event would have disciplined a lot of people into paying up for fire insurance. This whole thing actually reminds me of something Stalin said:

"The capitalists consider it quite normal in a time of slump to destroy "surplus" of commodities and burn "excess" agricultural produce in order to keep prices high to ensure high profits, while here in the USSR, those guilty of such crimes would be sent to a lunatic asylum"

The parallel here is that rational behaviour for the firefighters would be to put the fire out since they do have the capabilities to do so, but the madness of capitalism compels them to act rationally within the framework of an irrational system. Whereas in the USSR, any fire department that behaved this way would have been ruthlessly persecuted and their bosses liquidated.

[revolution inaction]

The excuse they used was that it would have set a bad example and then nobody would want to pay until their house was burning down.

yes, this. i was going to point out that a private fire department wants people to be scared of what will happen if they don't pay.

[revolution inaction]

Yes and I'm guessing this event would have disciplined a lot of people into paying up for fire insurance. This whole thing actually reminds me of something Stalin said:

"The capitalists consider it quite normal in a time of slump to destroy "surplus" of commodities and burn "excess" agricultural produce in order to keep prices high to ensure high profits, while here in the USSR, those guilty of such crimes would be sent to a lunatic asylum"

The parallel here is that rational behaviour for the firefighters would be to put the fire out since they do have the capabilities to do so, but the madness of capitalism compels them to act rationally within the framework of an irrational system. Whereas in the USSR, any fire department that behaved this way would have been ruthlessly persecuted and their bosses liquidated.

yes in the ussr those who would test unproven agricultural methods on an entire country got promoted to the most senior science possion in the ussr, while those who advocated actually using the scientific method where repressed and sent to the gulag, a thorough rational system indeed.

[Bud Struggle]

yes in the ussr those who would test unproven agricultural methods on an entire country got promoted to the most senior science possion in the ussr, while those who advocated actually using the scientific method where repressed and sent to the gulag, a thorough rational system indeed.

Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

[Comrade Anarchist]

So b/c a GOVERNMENT agency refused to put the mans fire out means the market failed? obviously your stupidity prevents you from seeing the fact that a government agency refusing to put out his fire means the man is damned to have his house burn. Under an anarcho capitalist society the man doesn't have to pay the subscription fee for the fire department and if his house catches fire and he needs them then he can call the mulitiple competeing fire departments in his area and more than one of them will come and once the fire has been put out send him a bill later.

When the government refused the service the man had no other options other than to stare at his house burning down. Under a free market there would be competeing fire departments and even if the man refused to pay for a subscription these departments would still help him b/c they could bill him later down the line. And if one refused him he could call another and another and another. With public utilities they're a one stop shop no competitors no competition so by doing bad business they remain unscathed while a private company would face a shit storm and might go out of business considering that they could have just billed him later.

[L.A.P.]

I'm surprised this doesn't make people angry enough to break shit, if I were in that position I would walk into city hall and if the city didn't comply with my demands I would literally attack those bastards with a fucking baseball bat.

[revolution inaction]

So b/c a GOVERNMENT agency refused to put the mans fire out means the market failed? obviously your stupidity prevents you from seeing the fact that a government agency refusing to put out his fire means the man is damned to have his house burn. Under an anarcho capitalist society the man doesn't have to pay the subscription fee for the fire department and if his house catches fire and he needs them then he can call the mulitiple competeing fire departments in his area and more than one of them will come and once the fire has been put out send him a bill later.

When the government refused the service the man had no other options other than to stare at his house burning down. Under a free market there would be competeing fire departments and even if the man refused to pay for a subscription these departments would still help him b/c they could bill him later down the line. And if one refused him he could call another and another and another. With public utilities they're a one stop shop no competitors no competition so by doing bad business they remain unscathed while a private company would face a shit storm and might go out of business considering that they could have just billed him later.

yes just like when people don't have health insurance :)


oh wait...

[RGacky3]

Under an anarcho capitalist society the man doesn't have to pay the subscription fee for the fire department and if his house catches fire and he needs them then he can call the mulitiple competeing fire departments in his area and more than one of them will come and once the fire has been put out send him a bill later.


Probably not, probably they would have the same style of contracts, i.e. pay for insurance otherwise we arn't wasting our money.


er a free market there would be competeing fire departments and even if the man refused to pay for a subscription these departments would still help him b/c they could bill him later down the line. And if one refused him he could call another and another and another.

Or maybe there would only be one.

[Jazzratt]

Surely a private fire service has a direct interest in there being lots of fires? People are more likely to pay their fees and so on, after all, if they feel their house or property burning down is a very real danger. I'm not saying they'd immediately resort to arson or anything (although if I ran one it'd be a tempting option) but we'd certainly see a slow down in the fire prevention aspect of the fire service in favour of the more lucrative fire dousing aspect.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So b/c a GOVERNMENT agency refused to put the mans fire out means the market failed? obviously your stupidity prevents you from seeing the fact that a government agency refusing to put out his fire means the man is damned to have his house burn. Under an anarcho capitalist society the man doesn't have to pay the subscription fee for the fire department and if his house catches fire and he needs them then he can call the mulitiple competeing fire departments in his area and more than one of them will come and once the fire has been put out send him a bill later.

When the government refused the service the man had no other options other than to stare at his house burning down. Under a free market there would be competeing fire departments and even if the man refused to pay for a subscription these departments would still help him b/c they could bill him later down the line. And if one refused him he could call another and another and another. With public utilities they're a one stop shop no competitors no competition so by doing bad business they remain unscathed while a private company would face a shit storm and might go out of business considering that they could have just billed him later.Because leaving disasters to the free market works so well:

So many private utility choices like PG&E or PG&E...

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/09/10/1225917/403122-dtsplash-explosion-rocks-san-bruno-california.jpg

Just a little explosion of an entire neighborhood now and then... poisoning of a community's groundwater now and then...

http://twilightearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/bp-oil-spill.jpg

Public safety, the free-market's #1 concern.

[ComradeMan]

It comes down to the old problem.

Public services should not be privatised- period! Profit margins and social needs do not go hand-in-hand.

On this list I include:-

1. Education
2. Emergency services
3. Healthcare
4. Transport

[Lt. Ferret]

jimmie higgins, ever heard of chernobyl?

[timbaly]

I believe the fire department has only recently begun to serve the area where the house burned down. From what I understand the town/village/area where the fire took place previously had no fire coverage whatsoever. The town is rural and therefore cannot sustain it's own department so the town as a collective decided to contract the fire department to serve them. From what I understand the town allowed people to opt out of the service in case they did not wish to pay the fee. What seems like the best idea to me is to make the fee mandatory, the townspeople could probably get a group discount this way. As for the firefighters not putting out the fires, I think they should have just done it and then charged a penalty fee to the homeowners for not purchasing coverage in advance.

[Amphictyonis]

Do you have a source?

History. You'll have a hard time finding the word "privatized". They called them 'volunteers' but people had to pay and put 'fire marks' on their homes or the insurance companies 'volunteers' would pass your burning house.

Here's one of the old marks from NYC-


http://cgi.ebay.com/Fire-Mark-Lorillard-New-York-City-/300411555808?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45f1ec8fe0


As far as the 'volunteer' (private for profit) system goes they changed changed the laws from private to public because NY had so many devastating fires which could have been prevented with a non profit public service. You'll get different accounts from various historians but I've read the fires always started in a building that didn't have a fire mark so they would let it burn and it would spread. It will take me a while to get the source. I've read so many books I couldn't tell you the name of it.

I have no reason to lie :) Sources are good though if debating capitalists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

jimmie higgins, ever heard of chernobyl?How does that prove that for-profit utilities care about the public, or safety? Saying a hippo can kill you as much as a crocodile doesn't make the crocodile any safer.

But here, I'll amend my statement for you: utilities should be run based on human needs and wishes, not for profit, or the interest of government bureaucrats.

Same thing goes for schools - for-profit characterization or vouchers will not help anyone but the people making the profits. That doesn't mean that I support more power for the school administrators... schools should be run by students/parents and teachers, the people who have an interest in making the most of education.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I don't think parents should have a hand in education, just kids and teachers is enough. The kid always wanted to learn while the parents vigorously defend their kids from "harm and immoral."

[PoliticalNightmare]

I agree. The actualy firefighters would have put out the fire without question. People on top told them not to do it.

You can't blame the actual firefighters themselves.

One Word: Milgram

[RGacky3]

jimmie higgins, ever heard of chernobyl?


The Soviet government was pretty much a corporation, run like one, undemocratic, and interested in its own power, so if anything thats proof that you need institutions like the fire department to be democratic and publically run.

[Nolan]

jimmie higgins, ever heard of chernobyl?

Not that I care for the USSR at that point, but I'm sure the responders didn't sit around because the boss didn't get paid.

[Budguy68]

The whole thread is a Joke. the fire department in the story is not even privatize.... Its part of the Local government.

The comminist here would have people believe that Man is so evil that he wouldn't lay a finger to try and put out a neighbors fire. Compeletely false.

Besides that 70% of US fire fighters actually Do work for free.... and they are supported by voluntary programs which in many cases are funded by rich people.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The whole thread is a Joke. the fire department in the story is not even privatize.... Its part of the Local government.

Because privatised firms wouldn't be interested in making a profit? Because the cigar smoking charlies who run them would be kind and compassionate and want to help save kittens rescued in trees, even if that kitten hadn't paid their $75?

[Budguy68]

Because privatised firms wouldn't be interested in making a profit?

Nothing wrong with wantin to make a profit....

In fact if I ever had a business that would be my first goal.

But to get there I know I would have to hire good skilled workers and good skilled workers aren't cheap. And if I pay them too little or don't treat them right they'll even up quiting and i'll lose all that money i spent training them.

So our employers are at the mercy of its employees just as the employees are to their employers. 2 way street.

[Budguy68]

Because privatised firms wouldn't be interested in making a profit? Because the cigar smoking charlies who run them would be kind and compassionate and want to help save kittens rescued in trees, even if that kitten hadn't paid their $75?

Ive already posted a new article about rich people donating to voluntary firefighter programs.

Bill gates did donate 40 billion you know.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Ive already posted a new article about rich people donating to voluntary firefighter programs.

Bill gates did donate 40 billion you know.

Great and Bill Gates and other rich folk are very genorous. He clearly thinks that capitalism is a superior system and he focused on working his way up the ladder so that he could be one of those nice, cuddly capitalists who works on improving the world.

That being said, most rich people who worked their way up and became rich only managed to do so because they have a lust and greed for wealth and will do so no matter what. This is what fuels most wealthy people otherwise it would be significantly harder for them to get there. You forget how intelligent Bill Gates is - he was able to make it to the top, regardless.

So, your argument is essentially, all rich folk are generous which clearly isn't true.

[ComradeMan]

BudGuy makes Bud Struggle sound like Fidel Castro and Lieut. Ferret like El Che!!!! :laugh:

BudGuy some of your arguments sound like slavery. Didn't slave owners have an interest in keeping their slaves fit and healthy for work on the plantation? They probably did feed them well too in a sense but that doesn't stop it from being morally indefensible?

You can build an economic policy around the donations of rich people can you? What if those rich people decide not to be so generous? I do not doubt that there are some rich people who are very generous and philanthropic but that's not the point. It would be like saying "let's not seek ways of improving and developing the third world because they get fed by donations anyway?"- sounds like a pretty vicious ideology to me.

[#FF0000]

The whole thread is a Joke. the fire department in the story is not even privatize.... Its part of the Local government.

Sure but the system they have in place is what a privatized fire department would use. Pay a fee at the beginning of the year for fire dept. services.


The comminist here would have people believe that Man is so evil that he wouldn't lay a finger to try and put out a neighbors fire. Compeletely false.

We don't believe that anyway so

[Revolution starts with U]

I said it in the other thread; show me ONE wealthy community with a volunteer or private fire department. Show me one. You can't. Rich people love to use the state to pay for what they can damn well afford themselves, and then make poor rural people rely on volunteers.
And as comrade man said, go back and listen to the pro slavery arguments. Many of them were that 'white people are giving them a better life than the jungle."
THe "capitalists don't exploit workers" theory is the same as "slave masters are good for negroes" theory. Just the words have changed.
Besides, the common anti-exploitation theory is that "capitalists pay their workers up front, not when the actual money comes in, satisfying their low time preference." It is a much better argument (tho still just as bogus). I would stick to it, instead of "ya but rich people give them bread and carnival."

[RGacky3]

So our employers are at the mercy of its employees just as the employees are to their employers. 2 way street.

Not int the real world because there is 10% unemployment and most employees don't have enough disposabilt income to survive long without a job.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Nothing wrong with wantin to make a profit....

In fact if I ever had a business that would be my first goal.

But to get there I know I would have to hire good skilled workers and good skilled workers aren't cheap. And if I pay them too little or don't treat them right they'll even up quiting and i'll lose all that money i spent training them.

So our employers are at the mercy of its employees just as the employees are to their employers. 2 way street.

Nothing wrong with trying to keep the pesantry in its place. if I ever became a feudal lord, that's what I'd do.

If I was a lord and I take all the products of my peasants farms and flog them too much, they'll die and then I won't have grain or people to make my fine robes for me and then I won't be able to be a lord effectively.

...of course I'm not a lord, I'm a surf... but I don't know, one day an angel of god might come down and tell me that I'm an aristocrat or a King will come to my rye field and give me a title and some land. So I want to make sure that the aristocracy has as much power as possible just in case I join their ranks at some point.

[Revolution starts with U]

^ YAY Feudalism! :tt1::tt1::tt1:

[ComradeMan]

^ YAY Feudalism! :tt1::tt1::tt1:

Is feudalism restrictable on RevLeft? :laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

sarcasm? :confused:

[inyourhouse]

The excuse they used was that it would have set a bad example and then nobody would want to pay until their house was burning down.

Their excuse is incorrect. I was showing that the profit maximizing position is to stop all houses from burning down and to collect a large fee from those who didn't pay the subscription. Although there will be a decrease in the number of people buying subscriptions when operating this way rather than just letting houses of those who didn't buy subscriptions burn down, the loss is more than made up for by the large fees. Therefore, I don't think the way the fire department acted is how a private fire department would act.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Their excuse is incorrect. I was showing that the profit maximizing position is to stop all houses from burning down and to collect a large fee from those who didn't pay the subscription. Although there will be a decrease in the number of people buying subscriptions when operating this way rather than just letting houses of those who didn't buy subscriptions burn down, the loss is more than made up for by the large fees. Therefore, I don't think the way the fire department acted is how a private fire department would act.

It doesn't matter: people will stop paying these subscriptions if they think the fire department will put out their fire for them anyway, then the fire service will lose its funding, firemen will receive less wages, etc. or the fire service will make it compulsory for you to pay if you want your house putting out.

Really, I don't see how anyone can advocate a privatised fire/police/military/health service. It's just madness.

[inyourhouse]

It doesn't matter: people will stop paying these subscriptions if they think the fire department will put out their fire for them anyway, then the fire service will lose its funding, firemen will receive less wages, etc. or the fire service will make it compulsory for you to pay if you want your house putting out.

I think my post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1897378&postcount=64) shows that this will not happen. Even assuming that an individual is perfectly risk loving (r=1), f exists and is positive, so it is always profit maximizing for the fire department to put out fires for those who don't pay a subscription and then charge them a large fee afterwards. Refusing to put out the fire would increase the number of subscriptions, but would result in less profit.


Really, I don't see how anyone can advocate a privatised fire/police/military/health service. It's just madness.

I know, but we're talking about a theoretical possibility.

[Revolution starts with U]

And what happens if people start refusing to even pay the fee when the dept shows up?

[revolution inaction]

what about people who cant pay a large fee? why would the fire department put out there fires?