Hello everyone,
I was wondering if any of you could lend a hand with the above topic. I was discussing this particular issue, of how it's perfectly reasonable to think of private services for police and fire, on a discussion board with someone, and they brought up the following arguments:
1. If your house catches fire you call the fire dept for help, they first ask for a form of payment such as a credit card number, and maybe you don't have it with you, so the fire department says "Oh, well too bad then, if you can't pay...". And so your house burns down.
2. Let's say you pay a monthly fee for fire protection service, but your neighbor doesn't. Their house catches fire, and so does yours due to their fire. You have "insurance" of sorts for this but your neighbor doesn't. So now your "insurance" rates go up due to the number of people in your neighborhood that don't have insurance, yadda, yadda.
3. A law then gets passed stating that the private fire service can't refuse those in need, so costs go up like they have for medical care.
Another thing the poster mentioned was that things such as fire service and police are run by government is because it's financially less than when its privatized.
The reason I'm asking for your opinions is not so much to "win" the argument, but more for my own education, as this is an area that I haven't researched very much. Plus I'm curious as to the opinions of others here.
Thanks in advance, your opinions are very much appreciated!
Dave
Sorry for this post folks, I realized shortly after the fact that there are plenty of other posts of which to get the information I need.
Kind regards,
I guess a lot of people don't live around volunteer firehouses. I do. They are everywhere here in most townships. They only run on donations. People don't want fires so they volunteer to put them out. They are willing to volunteer to go put them out. Where I grew up not too far from here you need to be 16 years old to be able to volunteer. They are not allowed to do anything except sit in the firehall until they take certain tests provided by the adult firemen. There is a great pride and a huge willingness to get the youth to do this correctly - I mean they are dealing with fires and people's lives.
The volunteer's if I remember correctly, paid a very small monthly fee. This money went to fire hall daily expenses such as the TV. As kids I remember when some of the teenagers, when they turned 16, they joined up. We hung out down at the firehall and played cards and talked at times. Whenever the siren went off the volunteers ran out of the houses, down the street, got their equipment on, and left. They are trained by a local facility and do periodic practice runs. The different firehouses coordinated their efforts and worked together on numerous issues. They work together very well and it's a long tradition in the area. In that neighborhood the firehouse has been there for over 60 years at least I'd venture. They hold public events like gun raffles, carnivals, and stand at corners with a boot for donations. This is how they've gotten new equipment including fire trucks. They never have a hard time staying open.
As for the police, I don't see how something kin to what happens now wouldn't work. They get paid by taxes right? So they keep their current jobs and establishment but instead get paid directly by the people without the government bloated middleman.
The desires by people for a safe and secure life has nothing to do with the government. It's an inner quality of human nature.
An insurance type system for either of the two may be the result. It would be similar to current home security systems, except that the insurance company would provide the security forces. Since they are interested in your business, the fact may be that they will respond much faster than the police. The same for a fire fighting company. You would pay a monthly fee for a service.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: The same for a fire fighting company. You would pay a monthly fee for a service.
The same for a fire fighting company. You would pay a monthly fee for a service.
You would? Not necessarily as I wrote. It's better now than what you propose if you are limiting the options to monthly fees. At the moment I live where people volunteer to put out fires. It's in most townships here.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:An insurance type system for either of the two may be the result.
And the incentive would be placed much more on preventing fires than how to put them out.
wilderness:You would? Not necessarily as I wrote. It's better now than what you propose if you are limiting the options to monthly fees. At the moment I live where people volunteer to put out fires. It's in most townships here.
I don't live in a town, I live in a city. And, volunteer fire fighting services do not exist everywhere. The town I'm from in Spain, El Provencio, does not have a volunteer fire fighting unit. Although one would probably come into existance if there was no public fire fighting unit, the same doesn't remain true for cities.
I am not discounting volunteer fire fighters; I am discounting them as the sole outcome of privatized fire fighting.
There are private fire departments already. You can search either mises.org or fee.org and you should be able to find the story.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Any fire company that exploited people whose house was on fire would immediately lose all of its customers. Competition would ensure that.
It's like asking, why doesn't Brinks Home Security tell people who's houses are being robbed that they will only send the police over if they pay an extra $1000? It's simply nonsese.
So why is it that the state-owned forests in California catch on fire every year, killing dozens, destroying millions of dollars of other property, forcing thousands from their homes, and taking weeks to extinguish and requiring the services of foreign fire departments?
Why is it that banks have private security guards, why do homeowners have house alarms, why does the Vatican have Swiss guards, and why does the POTUS have a Secret Service when the local police should suffice?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
BobT: Any fire company that exploited people whose house was on fire would immediately lose all of its customers. Competition would ensure that. It's like asking, why doesn't Brinks Home Security tell people who's houses are being robbed that they will only send the police over if they pay an extra $1000? It's simply nonsese.
Good point, one I hadn't even thought of, at least not in that regard.
Of course I've made mention of several of the good points from posts here (not on this thread, but on others referring to privatizing fire and police), and the responses I get are usually "You make good points, but I still think the government should provide those things". One person even mentioned that they should be provided due to the "general welfare" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ugh.
Thanks for your posts everyone, very helpful!
Daniel: So why is it that the state-owned forests in California catch on fire every year, killing dozens, destroying millions of dollars of other property, forcing thousands from their homes, and taking weeks to extinguish and requiring the services of foreign fire departments? Why is it that banks have private security guards, why do homeowners have house alarms, why does the Vatican have Swiss guards, and why does the POTUS have a Secret Service when the local police should suffice?
Even more good points!
I have a feeling, however, that the retort would be that with the California fires, if fire departments were privatized, there would still be those same issues with private companies. I don't think there would be, just playing devil's advocate, because I know how those people think (by "those people" I mean those that think government should provide these and other services).
Liberty Dave: Hello everyone, 1. If your house catches fire you call the fire dept for help, they first ask for a form of payment such as a credit card number, and maybe you don't have it with you, so the fire department says "Oh, well too bad then, if you can't pay...". And so your house burns down.
Obviously, the fire department will make profits only by satisfying consumers. Since it is safe to assume that "quick response" would be a highly valued consumer service, the market would have to figure out a way to provide it. In fact, it's easy to imagine that better and more innovative solutions would be found, e.g. the "panic" keypad on most home security systems, fire detector sensors wired to some emergency center. Such solutions already exist today.
Liberty Dave: 2. Let's say you pay a monthly fee for fire protection service, but your neighbor doesn't. Their house catches fire, and so does yours due to their fire. You have "insurance" of sorts for this but your neighbor doesn't. So now your "insurance" rates go up due to the number of people in your neighborhood that don't have insurance, yadda, yadda.
If your neighbor catches fire, but doesn't have an account, a private fire department would still come to his aid and send him a bill (of a non-customer) afterwards. If he's not home, they would still come by you calling (or somebody else), and leave him a bill afterwards. If he doesn’t pay, then he would become like any other debtor in society who refuses or is unable to pay. His credit would be affected and he may go on some database list that may give him harsh times in the future. Sure, if he still doesn't pay, you pick up the tab trough higher premiums. You would actually demand that his fire be put out on the mere account of your own safety. There is no way that such "free rider" problems become a major issue in a free market. The "free rider" problem is an inherent problem of government services, and not of free markets.
Liberty Dave: 3. A law then gets passed stating that the private fire service can't refuse those in need, so costs go up like they have for medical care.
Such a law would be unnecessary (see #2). However, the minute you start to regulate the industry, you start to compromise the free market of the industry. Any failure of the industry due to a regulation, as suggested by this "someone", is a failure of government intervention and not the free market. People must distinguish between a free market and private. The latter does not necessarily equal to the first.
Liberty Dave: Another thing the poster mentioned was that things such as fire service and police are run by government is because it's financially less than when its privatized.
Nothing that the government runs is going to ever be financially less or more efficient then the market. In fact, because these services are socialized, there is no "rational choice of means for the best possible attainment of the ultimate ends sought" (Mises, Human Action). Even such basic things as how many fire houses, how many men, trucks, equipment, etc.. are all arbitrary based more on politics then on real consumer demand. There is no way to efficiently gauge consumer demand without profits and losses. Most of these decisions today are arbitrary and depend on how much the lobbyist for the police or fire department services can manage to extort out of the tax payers. And with no threat of competition or insolvency, and no profit incentive, what incentive would there be to reduce costs or provide better service. What is the right balance between costs and quality of service? Again, there is no way to determine except by arbitrary means.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: wilderness:You would? Not necessarily as I wrote. It's better now than what you propose if you are limiting the options to monthly fees. At the moment I live where people volunteer to put out fires. It's in most townships here. I don't live in a town, I live in a city. And, volunteer fire fighting services do not exist everywhere. The town I'm from in Spain, El Provencio, does not have a volunteer fire fighting unit. Although one would probably come into existance if there was no public fire fighting unit, the same doesn't remain true for cities. I am not discounting volunteer fire fighters; I am discounting them as the sole outcome of privatized fire fighting.
Ok. Just making sure it wasn't a blanket statement. I agree there will probably be a mix. Cities tend to have full-time paid firefighters cause they need to be on standby constantly.
Liberty Dave: Even more good points! I have a feeling, however, that the retort would be that with the California fires, if fire departments were privatized, there would still be those same issues with private companies. I don't think there would be, just playing devil's advocate, because I know how those people think (by "those people" I mean those that think government should provide these and other services).
Sure, but conceding to the notion of market failure/government failure, the fact that we private security firms exist is proof that the government has failed to provide adequate police protection. Also, the burden lies on the statist to prove that government police are more efficient/effective/better than private security.
Person A claims X without proofPerson B says "not true"Person A says "prove it's not true"
The burden lies on Person A to prove X
Where is all this evidence/proof that the government does a better job at providing security and fire services?
Liberty Dave: One person even mentioned that they should be provided due to the "general welfare" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ugh.
One person even mentioned that they should be provided due to the "general welfare" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ugh.
General Welfare doesn't mean Welfare State, but that's a side issue.
People that still continue to disagree and say stuff like that aren't arguing against the government cause of moral or quality grounds. This kind of argument is based on somebody that simply likes government no matter if it's good or bad. I'd remind them that since there already are private security firms, etc... and more firefighters that are private than government that they are actually asking the government to become even bigger. So even in the political field in which they vote, they are socialists/communists compared to the supposedly conservatives/less government people. And you might make them proud to call them a socialist and if so, then your arguing with people that are most likely not going to change their minds, cause they want everything to be government owned. If given the chance they think it will be better.
wilderness: General Welfare doesn't mean Welfare State, but that's a side issue. People that still continue to disagree and say stuff like that aren't arguing against the government cause of moral or quality grounds. This kind of argument is based on somebody that simply likes government no matter if it's good or bad. I'd remind them that since there already are private security firms, etc... and more firefighters that are private than government that they are actually asking the government to become even bigger. So even in the political field in which they vote, they are socialists/communists compared to the supposedly conservatives/less government people. And you might make them proud to call them a socialist and if so, then your arguing with people that are most likely not going to change their minds, cause they want everything to be government owned. If given the chance they think it will be better.
They're either stupid or evil. I'm not sure which one is worse.
Daniel: wilderness: General Welfare doesn't mean Welfare State, but that's a side issue. People that still continue to disagree and say stuff like that aren't arguing against the government cause of moral or quality grounds. This kind of argument is based on somebody that simply likes government no matter if it's good or bad. I'd remind them that since there already are private security firms, etc... and more firefighters that are private than government that they are actually asking the government to become even bigger. So even in the political field in which they vote, they are socialists/communists compared to the supposedly conservatives/less government people. And you might make them proud to call them a socialist and if so, then your arguing with people that are most likely not going to change their minds, cause they want everything to be government owned. If given the chance they think it will be better. They're either stupid or evil. I'm not sure which one is worse.
Agreed. And if they want the government to have all the power, but then use a Constitution that limits government power for their argument, you know it's really gottin' either stupidier and/or evilier...
Vote for STUPID!
Schools are labour camps.
!) It would be perfectly reasonable for them to refuse you service. Anyone with half a brain will have emergency services arranged prior to the emergency actually happening. If you are worried about an emergency, you will have the correct amount of insurance and/or protection against them. More likely than not the company will have a set price for non-members and for members, meaning they will still come to put out your fire. Also, if fire service became optional, I guarantee you would see a massive leap in home safety equipment and technology. Perhaps a new technology would be created that even eliminates the threat of fire nearly all together? Who knows, but it sure sounds like a feasible step (fire retardant paints, insulations, siding, etc). Home fire extinguishers would definitely be more readily available. Smoke detectors would become much more advanced, rather than just 'detecting smoke' they could easily detect abnormal levels of heat- catch the fire prior to it starting. Perhaps 'extinguisher bombs' could be placed in attics and inside walls in order to limit the amount
2) Whats wrong with that? I pay more for car insurance for living in a downtown area. People are charged different prices based on their surroundings simply because those surroundings often contribute to hjigher risk. Once again, who knows what kind of technology would arise that stops the spread of house fires.
3) Well, we can all hope that doesn't happen. However, that doesn't prove anything. The same argument can be used for literally EVERY good in society. Ask ithem if they would want food to be handled by the government, because after all, if I dont have any money, a supermarket shouldn't be able to deny me my need of eating... riight? Take a look at history if you want an example of how horrible it gets when government nationalizes something as important as food. If they can't handle something as important as food, why would you want them to handle something as important as fires?
It may be financially less because you will get substantially less. There is absolutely no evidence supporting that it would be more costly from profit seeking firms. I would venture to say that fire protection is just like every other service, it will still be provided cheaper, better, and faster by contracted agencies than by the 'free' ones. Reason being they have large incentives to keep your house from burning, while their counterparts only have their 'love'. In fact, the worse they do, the more money will be thrown at them in an attempt to 'fix' the problem. Take American public schools for example. I remember when I was a kid my families house burned down- the fire department arrived just in time to say they couldn't do anything except watch it burn and make sure it didn't spread. If only my parents had not fell for the false protection that the city gave with their 'free' fire department, perhaps my parents would have reconsidered purchasing a fire extinguisher or two (or perhaps any other market technology which would protect your house).
The myth of blanket protection is a strong pull for most statists. Point out to them the actual statistics of criminals who get caught, fires that are supressed, or militaries that actually make a nation more safe, and they might reconsider. (probably not though! They are very similar to a cult in their thinking) :P
Liberty Dave:2. Let's say you pay a monthly fee for fire protection service, but your neighbor doesn't. Their house catches fire, and so does yours due to their fire. You have "insurance" of sorts for this but your neighbor doesn't. So now your "insurance" rates go up due to the number of people in your neighborhood that don't have insurance, yadda, yadda.
I would expect that a prudent homeowner moving into a thickly-settled area would make sure beforehand that everyone in the vicinity is contractually obligated to have fire protection/insurance. If later you decide that you don't want fire protection for your own home, then you can pay your neighbors to allow you to drop it.
Liberty Dave:I have a feeling, however, that the retort would be that with the California fires, if fire departments were privatized, there would still be those same issues with private companies. I don't think there would be, just playing devil's advocate, because I know how those people think (by "those people" I mean those that think government should provide these and other services).
From what I remember, the forests of California are naturally prone to wildfires, but overzealous attempts to put them out lead to a build-up of fuel that increases the severity of later fires. (Although, I think the government has changed to a more hands-off approach.) In any case, without government provision of fire protection, people would have less of an incentive to live near fire-prone forests.
DD5:If your neighbor catches fire, but doesn't have an account, a private fire department would still come to his aid and send him a bill (of a non-customer) afterwards. If he's not home, they would still come by you calling (or somebody else), and leave him a bill afterwards. If he doesn’t pay, then he would become like any other debtor in society who refuses or is unable to pay. His credit would be affected and he may go on some database list that may give him harsh times in the future. Sure, if he still doesn't pay, you pick up the tab trough higher premiums. You would actually demand that his fire be put out on the mere account of your own safety. There is no way that such "free rider" problems become a major issue in a free market. The "free rider" problem is an inherent problem of government services, and not of free markets.
Just remember that the debt is not legally enforceable unless this neighbor had previously made a contractual agreement to get fire insurance. This is the kind of thing that would have to be dealt with with social pressure—if the neighbor establishes a reputation for compensating those who provide him/her with assistance freely, then this encourages others to do so in the future.
I can verify this pretty much first hand. Working in the Insurance Industry roughly a year ago, with a loss adjusting company. Massive floods etc up north in Queensland Australia.
A fair amount of people were not covered by it. Insurance companies gave the word, accept the claim. Our job is to verify all the belongings etc of what had been destroyed. Physical evidence, photographs etc. problem is, that needs to be stored on the site or left until Loss Adjusters can get in an do so.
Order came down, the waste is a potential health hazard. Accept all claims.
The Insurance companies fear a backlash from the newspapers and market. If ONE of them doesn't, they'll get crucified pretty much. So it can be cheaper in fact too pay, get higher premiums over the long term and not lose customers going to other insurance companies that did pay.
Even for smaller items though, not caused by disasters - say a lost of stolen ipod. They know people often cheat or commit fraud. But it often becomes too expensive to try prove it. Far easier to make the small claim, premiums go up - and that person thinks they've won, but they've essentially paid for the ipod after a while in increased premiums.. lol.