The Fire Department Complaint?

[Knightskye]

"What about privatized fire departments!?!?!?!?!"

We've all heard it. What do we say about it? I read a bit of an essay on Mises about the history of fire departments in America and London.

Is there an answer besides "Pay for your own fire protection"? For some reason, I don't think that would help the "you hate poor people and puppies" image we have.

[sevin]

"What about privatized fire departments!?!?!?!?!"

We've all heard it. What do we say about it? I read a bit of an essay on Mises about the history of fire departments in America and London.

Is there an answer besides "Pay for your own fire protection"? For some reason, I don't think that would help the "you hate poor people and puppies" image we have.

Couldn't people have a subscription to the fire department? Most people's houses never burn down, so it would probably only be a few dollars a month. And I think if someone hadn't been paying and their house caught on fire, the FD would still put out the fire. They'd probably offer them a payment plan to pay it off.

[brandon]

Everyone already pays for their own fire protection.

Poor people don't own houses that need fire protection.

[tremendoustie]

There could be charities to help poor people. Also, it is likely that fire departments will put out fires on other people's property, who live near their customers, so as to avoid risk. As a side point, I think bundling fire coverage with insurance makes sense.

[Joe3113]

"What about privatized fire departments!?!?!?!?!"

We've all heard it. What do we say about it? I read a bit of an essay on Mises about the history of fire departments in America and London.

Is there an answer besides "Pay for your own fire protection"? For some reason, I don't think that would help the "you hate poor people and puppies" image we have.

Insurance companies. It is in their interest to see that your house does NOT burn down. Where is the incentive for state owned services? They have a monopoly.

Prevention is also in the interest of insurance companies. They do not want your house to burn down. Thus, higher rates for more at risk homes.

Too poor to afford insurance? And since we are assuming private fire services, we should also be assuming no or next to no taxation. Woah, look at all that new wealth and cheaper products, goods and services.

But yeah, if you are still too poor. No worries - you obviously don't have anything of real value that will burn. You obviously don't have a house.

But prey tell you are lazy and don't get insurance, or want to risk it.

Then when your house is burning, or there is a fire.. call the fire department and they will charge you call out cost. Read something that it was like $200. One off thing. And if they put it out, you got to pay for the water used etc.

That IS if YOU started the fire. If it was arson, or whatever.. then the criminal would have too. :)

Hope this helps.

[brandon]

There could be charities to help poor people. Also, it is likely that fire departments will put out fires on other people's property, who live near their customers, so as to avoid risk. As a side point, I think bundling fire coverage with insurance makes sense.

The only way a person would need fire service is if they own a home. If some one owns a home, doesn't that mean they are not poor? I mean, if you own a home you are already paying thousands in property tax every year.

Privatizing fire departments would not hurt any poor people. We're talking about reducing the cost to the people that already pay for this service. That's it. Nothing more.

[tremendoustie]

The only way a person would need fire service is if they own a home. If some one owns a home, doesn't that mean they are not poor? I mean, if you own a home you are already paying thousands in property tax every year.

Privatizing fire departments would not hurt any poor people. We're talking about reducing the cost to the people that already pay for this service. That's it. Nothing more.

A good point.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

this isn't a federal or even a state matter, but a county or city matter. I think it would be different for each place.

[fgd]

Already been done, private fire companies funded by peoples' homeowner insurance are commonplace in California. They work fine, they're cheap, and they're effective. The "what about private fire departments?!?" is easily dismissed.

[mport1]

Obviously violence needs to be inflicted on people so fires can be put out.

[angelatc]

"What about privatized fire departments!?!?!?!?!"

We've all heard it. What do we say about it? I read a bit of an essay on Mises about the history of fire departments in America and London.

Is there an answer besides "Pay for your own fire protection"? For some reason, I don't think that would help the "you hate poor people and puppies" image we have.

Our fire department is all volunteer.

[Knightskye]

Thanks, guys. :)