For my Libertarian friends

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Private fire companies? MAAAN YOU CRAZY! Why? *runs away* Why not? Why would we not at least allow outside competition?  Many places operate with volunteer firehouses. Surely they can work with privatized ones?  It will lower costs, reduce response time, increase efficiency, and allow people who don't want the service to opt out. In my home we don't smoke, don't light candles, are incredibly anal about open flames, have a fire detector in every room, and 3 fire extinguishers in the house. Why should I subsidize a family who is careless about their fire control and much more likely to have a home fire when I take so much care of my own home?

Then you have faith that a fire started in some careless slob's home won't spread to yours before the menage of private firefighters or your own private fire fighter can take care of you and yours?

The folly is that if you don't care about your neighbor, selfishness can come around and bite you n the ass.

Who provides the hydrants and the water supply?  Can a bunch of different competing private companies accomplish that?

Oh, I should've edited:
Equality asks, why. To which I run away.

OK, I need to mull this over. Never entered my mind before.

I guess first, I don't see a problem with outside competition but I would not want it to be an entirely private system.
It just seems to me that leaving something like your house burning down to a private company, (which after all has the primary focus of profit) seems off putting.
And to answer your question, all I can think of right now is: That its a common good. This is a public safety issue. It's great you take such important care but anything can happen, and you may not be able to control a fire, or even be there to do so.

But you mentioned outside competition? I could get on board. If someone wants to opt out of the public fire system and contract with a company, or nothing at all then alright.

I personally would not want to. But as long as you'd leave the public option there...than fine.
You may like the idea of a private fire system, but you wouldn't want to force it on me, would you?

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Private fire companies? MAAAN YOU CRAZY! Why? *runs away* Why not? Why would we not at least allow outside competition?  Many places operate with volunteer firehouses. Surely they can work with privatized ones?  It will lower costs, reduce response time, increase efficiency, and allow people who don't want the service to opt out. In my home we don't smoke, don't light candles, are incredibly anal about open flames, have a fire detector in every room, and 3 fire extinguishers in the house. Why should I subsidize a family who is careless about their fire control and much more likely to have a home fire when I take so much care of my own home? Then you have faith that a fire started in some careless slob's home won't spread to yours before the menage of private firefighters or your own private fire fighter can take care of you and yours? The folly is that if you don't care about your neighbor, selfishness can come around and bite you n the ass. Who provides the hydrants and the water supply?  Can a bunch of different competing private companies accomplish that?

The issue is that why couldn't a private fire department do better than a government one?  The government is not exempt from a single one of your caveats.

Hydrants and water supplies?  Private companies can provide those, and often do (so that larger buildings can qualify for fire insurance).

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Private fire companies? MAAAN YOU CRAZY! Why? *runs away* Why not? Why would we not at least allow outside competition?  Many places operate with volunteer firehouses. Surely they can work with privatized ones?  It will lower costs, reduce response time, increase efficiency, and allow people who don't want the service to opt out. In my home we don't smoke, don't light candles, are incredibly anal about open flames, have a fire detector in every room, and 3 fire extinguishers in the house. Why should I subsidize a family who is careless about their fire control and much more likely to have a home fire when I take so much care of my own home? Then you have faith that a fire started in some careless slob's home won't spread to yours before the menage of private firefighters or your own private fire fighter can take care of you and yours? The folly is that if you don't care about your neighbor, selfishness can come around and bite you n the ass. Who provides the hydrants and the water supply?  Can a bunch of different competing private companies accomplish that?

Epignosis wrote: Seriously, I believe fire departments are usually funded by local governments rather than the states.  Could be wrong though.

I believe so as well. It does not get much more federalist than that. So is the issue taxes paying for the service?

JJLehto wrote: It just seems to me that leaving something like your house burning down to a private company, (which after all has the primary focus of profit) seems off putting.

But everyone trusts private companies to build the houses in the first place. 

JJLehto wrote: And to answer your question, all I can think of right now is: That its a common good. This is a public safety issue. It's great you take such important care but anything can happen, and you may not be able to control a fire, or even be there to do so.

You may not be able to control fire, but does the government do a better job providing fire protection than a self-interested, private fire department might?  Don't think so...when you work for the government, there's job security even if you do a lousy job.  When you work for a boss who depends on you to provide a profit, you'd better do your damn best.

JJLehto wrote: But you mentioned outside competition? I could get on board. If someone wants to opt out of the public fire system and contract with a company, or nothing at all then alright. I personally would not want to. But as long as you'd leave the public option there...than fine. You may like the idea of a private fire system, but you wouldn't want to force it on me, would you?

That's fine with me so long as people who opt for a private fire department do not have to fund the public one.  And without all that public funding, either the government fire department won't be able to keep up, or it effectively becomes a private company (just one owned by the government and financed the same way that the other fire companies are).

Can I take it that you agree with me on this point Rob?

I must say, you guys have opened my eyes.
When I think of libertarian it's usually limited government, (the military, courts, etc) and more state/local control but you guys seem to eschew even that!

If the fire system is mainly funded at the local level, which I like, then that already seems like a company to me, just public and not private. On that small scale even, what is the issue? That tax money is being used to support it?

And if we had that private system to compete than no, Rob. Those people would not have to fund the public one.
Honestly, I never thought about this. Again, seemed like an issue that no one,I thought, had any qualms with. In our bubble world, I am OK with a private competitive system. I am fine with the option.
But I think there needs to be an option. I see NO issue with local government handling it.

Sorry


Edited by JJLehto - August 09 2010 at 20:35

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Oh, I should've edited: Equality asks, why. To which I run away. OK, I need to mull this over. Never entered my mind before. I guess first, I don't see a problem with outside competition but I would not want it to be an entirely private system. It just seems to me that leaving something like your house burning down to a private company, (which after all has the primary focus of profit) seems off putting. And to answer your question, all I can think of right now is: That its a common good. This is a public safety issue. It's great you take such important care but anything can happen, and you may not be able to control a fire, or even be there to do so. But you mentioned outside competition? I could get on board. If someone wants to opt out of the public fire system and contract with a company, or nothing at all then alright. I personally would not want to. But as long as you'd leave the public option there...than fine. You may like the idea of a private fire system, but you wouldn't want to force it on me, would you? To your last question, you are forcing a public system on me. I do not agree with it, and you force me to support it. To eliminate the public system places no burden on anybody. The public system is a burden Thank you for agreeing about competition. That's a minimal step that should be implemented everywhere. Personally, I don't see why you expect the government to be any more efficient than a private company. Also why does the government stop your house from burning down? Is it some common good mentality they have? No, the individual firefighters do it to get their paycheck, i.e. profit seeking.

There's a difference between a company that seeks to maximise profits and an individual who seeks to be paid to do work. Either way, fire spreads: it is in the common interest to ensure that no fire is simply left alone because one person happens not to be insured against it from the nearest company.

Question, equality... would you then want to privatise the army by the same logic? That's a massive tax cost, is basically controlled by the government with minimal consultation.

JJLehto wrote: And if we had that private system to compete than no, Rob. Those people would not have to fund the public one.

So from this I can conclude that you think it's wrong for people who send their kids to private schools to have to pay tax dollars to support public schools, right?





(hoping he caught JJ in taking a libertarian position)