We should privatize the fire department

[FreakyLocz14]

This would be a cost-effective way to provide fire protection services.
http://reason.org/files/c2bbfe415eccfdff424a2bf7c8a20585.pdf

Discuss.

 

[Esper]

Isn't this the classic example of why we shouldn't privatize things?

Saving lives should never be a for-profit business. That could lead to a bad conflict of interest.

 

[Oryx]

Reminds me of the time when the fire department charged 25 bucks to every resident of a town outside of its limits to protect it, since the other town didn't have a fire department. One person didn't pay it, so when their house caught on fire the fire department came there and just stared at the house. They tried to give them the money and the fire department refused to take it, and refused to put the fire out. Their house burned to the ground...but the neighbors had paid, so when the fire spread to theirs it was quickly put out.

Something so important to human life should never be a for-profit private business.

 

[Yamikarasu]

Cost effective for the consumer or for the government? Would it be something like the city pays a company, or an individual picks from a host of competing fire-fighting companies to subscribe to?

The latter would be a mess, because companies simply could not have the resources to build and maintain the infrastructure required all around the country.

The former might work, since we could keep in place the existing infrastructure and replace it with a privatized leadership. You also need to keep in mind how the fire fighters will be paid. Their pay shouldn't go down at all in the new scenario.

We can't have the fire departments picking and choosing who gets helped or not, and that's what a lot of people advocating for privatization of things like the fire department would support, like Rush Limbaugh, since they hate poor people. If there really is a way to prove the cost-effectiveness of the city purchasing fire-fighting services, then I guess I would be for it.

I just hate to see people saving people for profit. It really should be an altruistic service. I understand that profit encourages innovation, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

What I'm proposing is a $75 yearly fee, with waivers for low-income people.

Profit not only encoruages innovation. It also encourgaes better quality service and lower rates via competition.

Th government is no place for altruism. That's a threat to liberty and freedom. You are entitled to what you earn and the freedm to do what you want with it, but you are not entitled to stuff. In order to get that stuff, the government has to take it away from someone else. That's contrary to the fundamental principles of liberty.

 

[Oryx]

What I'm proposing is a $75 yearly fee, with waivers for low-income people.

Profit not only encoruages innovation. It also encourgaes better quality service and lower rates via competition.

Th government is no place for altruism. That's a threat to liberty and freedom. You are entitled to what you earn and the freedm to do what you want with it, but you are not entitled to stuff. In order to get that stuff, the government has to take it away from someone else. That's contrary to the fundamental principles of liberty.

What happens if you don't pay the fee and your house catches on fire? What if your house is situated near a forest and you choose not to pay it so the fire department won't put out the fire, and it spreads?

 

[twocows]

Absolutely one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. If you had said the police force, you might have a leg to stand on, but the fire department? Fire services are one of the few government institutions that aren't corrupt! Privatization would end that! Our fire departments are wonderful, and I don't think there are people I respect more than the firefighters who put their lives on the line for low pay with few benefits.

Profit does not encourage better quality service, it encourages whatever is necessary to generate the most profit through the least risk. This is absolutely one of the worst possible ideas for fire control.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

What happens if you don't pay the fee and your house catches on fire? What if your house is situated near a forest and you choose not to pay it so the fire department won't put out the fire, and it spreads?

The fire department would control the fire once it spreads to the forest.

 

[Oryx]

The fire department would control the fire once it spreads to the forest.

You forgot to add the "if they were able to" to the end of that. Hopefully the people who don't pay don't live near anyone or anything that could catch fire.

There are businesses that always are as ethical as possible while still trying for competitive, low prices. Then there are Wal-Marts and businesses like them. I don't know about you, but I don't want my firefighters cutting corners to save profits, that's one place where I don't it to be a business out for money, but a government institution that isn't just looking out for itself.

I also don't like the idea that a fire department, like a business, could just leave a town if they felt that they could get better money elsewhere. I don't like the idea of a fire department that really doesn't care about the people they're protecting, just their own salaries and profit margin.

 

[Livewire]

I said no more political threads from you for awhile. I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I was kidding.

Protip: You have a blog, use it. Other Chat isn't the Huffington Post or The Wall Street Journal.


*Locked*