Living in a Libertarian state would be very complicated me thinks. You would need a lot of subscriptions to be protected for all services. Fire department, police , ambulance etc etc... Fire Departments were run on a subscription like system 100 years ago and this was abandoned because it was impractical and inefficient... If a fire broke out on a street with a lot of different business's you could end up with lots of different fire departments fighting the one fire. How could this work efficiently ? Surely it would be total chaos with all the different fire departments falling over each other trying to protect their clients interests. Surely in a situation like this it would be better to have one fire department running the rescue effort ?
That's a pretty weak argument against it... Oh, centralization is just more convenient, so let's just steal everyone's money, put it in a big pool and hope everyone gets provided a good service. I'm sure there would be companies who tried to offer all 3 (since they're related) or at the least worked with those other companies that offered other emergency services. Source? And what makes you think it would be inefficient in a free market? A hunch? Got any data to support your hypotheses? Part of me is doubting the fact that those fire departments were operating in a free market, but I would like to see a source before I jump to a conclusion. The businesses could cooperate. I know, crazy idea. Obviously, in your scenario, it would be smarter for all the different fire departments to work together to put out the fire. If you don't mind, I think I'm going to stop responding to these ridiculous hypotheticals. Your argument has basically devolved into: this is possible in a free market, this is inefficient, therefore free markets are inefficient. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. If the system is inefficient, improve it! Go start your own fire department! Get all the business in the area to subscribe to your efficient system for low price. Ever hear of groupon? How do they do so well? Surely, it wouldn't. Wouldn't you think in a time of emergency, humans would work together and cooperate in order to help their fellow man? I'm betting if an entire strip mall set on fire, you'd have some people willing to help out even if they might not be their clients or may not even be part of a fire department. Ever hear of empathy? I'm really growing tired of responding to these ridiculous hypotheticals you build up in your mind. The market will decide what is best. Supply and demand.
Did the market not already decide this at the turn of the century when after pressure from the various insurance companies the volunteer/private fire departments of NYC were replaced with a professional service under a central control ? The point of this thread was by no means to have a pop or start a row with Libertarians. I am merely curious as to how Libertarian blades would see a Libertarian USA functioning.
The market didn't decide. Pressure from insurance companies does not count as the market deciding (corporatocracy much?). That's called government intervention in the market, which is the antithesis of free markets.
The individual business owners of insurance companies decided to work together in getting the government of the time to solve their problem with huge payouts to their customers because of inefficiencies in stopping/preventing fires. Government intervention came about because of pressure from the market. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Came across this article from 2006 recently and would be interested in what you and other Libertarians make of it.. Apologies if it has been posted before... Liberaltarians | Brink Lindsey | Cato Institute: Commentary
I would call that corporatism or at the least statism. It's not compatible with the libertarianism that I'm personally interested in. I personally believe that the private sector can provide that service better than the government can. I'm not going to go out of my way to stop NYC from implementing some government firefighting service, but I'm not going to support them.
This is a great example of what happens with "fee based" services, as opposed to tax based. Classic libertarian values: Don't pay for health insurance? No health care for you. Don't pay for fire service? Your house burns to the ground. No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com I think this is shameful, but then again, my panties aren't in a knot over having to pay for taxes. I'm sure most people on here think this is perfectly justified.
I actually foresaw this since one of my self-proclaimed "progressive" friends already posted this on facebook as a free market failure. Too bad it's not the free market, since it was the local government's policy that they not put out the fire. Forgot to mention that little tidbit, eh? Yea, this is an example of the public sector failing. IMO, the firefighters were either being dicks (who wouldn't help someone put out a fire?) or were fearful of losing their jobs. I'm thinking it was the latter, but that is just my opinion. How nice of you to speak for other people. It is shameful that firefighters wouldn't put out a fire. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?
Name one fee based business or service that does not have the same policy. Don't pay, no service. That's how non-tax based services work. Are you saying that with free market fire protection, they would put your fire out regardless of whether you paid or not?
No, it's frustrating when people can't understand concepts like the free market and then proceed to bash them every time the media tells them the free market failed. That doesn't mean that all services have to work that way. Emergency services probably wouldn't have to work that way. I know, I know. GOVERNMENT GOOD (even though they failed this time, lol). FREE MARKET BAD. Also, there are plenty of fee-based services that don't always require payment for service. My dad's a medical doctor. You think he charges everyone he gives medical advice to? Naa, charity doesn't exist. wtf am I talking about... Yes, I posted an article about the free-rider problem in this thread twice I believe. Ever hear of empathy? Charity? Reputation?
Of course charity exists, but when our country is overrun with new charity cases because they are no longer being helped by taxes, the elderly, the poor, school children, etc are going to take precedent over some guy who "forgot" to pay is fire fee. I'm pretty sure your dad doesn't work for free. He may give out the occasional free advice, but he gets paid for his services, does he not? The idea that we can take away all government services and charities will step up to fill the void is a tad naive.
And your solution to this overwhelming number of "new charity cases" is theft? Forgive me if I interpreted your position wrong, but you seem to be implying that people will be left on the street to die if they're not taken care of by the state who pays for its operations through theft. Sure. He gets paid for his services most of the time. I won't get into the instances when he doesn't since you don't seem to be interested in that. I also wouldn't say he gets paid for his advice most of the time. Most of the advice he gives out is given for free. Insurance companies don't pay my dad for giving advice; he does it because he cares about his patients. Although, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about how health care is paid for in this country. The idea that we can steal from innocent, honest people to provide services and then hope that the services will be provided in an efficient fashion is a tad naive.
That firehouse is tax based and has a public monopoly on fire service in the county. If they were private they would be ready with contract in hand to charge for heightened on-the-spot fees to account for moral hazard, that or a competitor would. Or instead of only charging per-house the neighbors would pool their resources and get a group rate for the year. None of these ideas were considered because the fire station is managed by public officials who don't care about things like consumer demand because there is no threat of competition. But if you think people shouldn't have to pay for fire protection then I disagree with you.
No, because this very news article you posted has been so sensationalized, and so many facts have been left out, that it's tiring to keep hearing about it over and over. What happened to that man is not the marketplace, because in a true uhampered market, there would still be compassion and charity. What happened to that man was not voluntary exchange, but rather, something more along the lines of fascism. The firefighters showed up, and were so afraid of breaking with 'protocol', that they didn't put out the fire, even though they were ready to. That's called fascism. In a true free market, if a similar situation arose, I wager that the private fire department would put the fire out, but would charge him more than the nominal 75$ fee. Or, they could just put it out completely for free. Or, just like we have today, fire fighters would be voluntary, and wouldn't discriminate, but also wouldn't be a State-granted monopoly. Either way, simply saying 'Doh ho hoh this is what happens in a free market!' is idiotic. There are plenty of examples of people in unregulated environments, coming together to voluntarily provide a service in their free time for completely free. These examples mainly exist on the internet, because the internet is one of the last unregulated places that exists, but you people have a completely false conception of what the free market really is. It's not all about profits, only in corporatism is it about profits. A market place is simply the most efficient means of managing resources, it says nothing about making profit, but the profit motive is what creates innovation and brings us new technologies, drugs, medical procedures, etc.
So... your argument is that we must steal (I mean 'tax') money from people to take care of them because if we didn't then charities would be overrun? Right? That's your argument? Did you forget the other side of this equation: If people kept more of the money that is normally stolen from them then wouldn't charitable donations increase to fill the void? Or if these tax leeches weren't around then wouldn't a market for such services suddenly appear? And wouldn't savvy businessmen recognize that the need for fire protection services or any other service currently funded with stolen money is needed and offer that service to those who wanted it? Let's keep going. Now that people aren't having 40% of their income stolen from them couldn't they, in turn, afford these services now? And you forget that Mr. Cranick offered to pay for the fire department to come out and put out the blaze. Had this been a private company doing this I can pretty much guarantee that they would have come out and put out the fire. If for no other reason Mr. Cranick's insurance would more than likely footed the bill for this. It is indeed. That's why there will always be people around who recognize a need for something (like fire protection, police protection, health insurance, etc.) who will offer their services at a competitive rate, provided the state doesn't try to regulate competition out of existence.
Another thing is, imagine all the paperwork and bureaucratic work that has to be paid for with tax dollars for NOT putting out the fire. Seems less expensive to just plain put it out, which any smart businessman would do. Again, what happened here was fascism, not profiteering or the evil hand of the marketplace.
This wasn't a tax. It was a fee. He had a choice to pay it, he didnt', and so he didn't get service. You can't have it both ways. It's interesting how the solution is to rely on the compassion of others to get people out the mess their self-sufficient ideals got them into in the first place.