Because an entity that operates without competition and without the benefit of market price and profit signals will magically figure out how to deliver services better. Why don’t we pay for everything by taxes since the government is so much better at running enterprises than the market is? It worked well for the Soviets, right?

You are right on! A human being will be (extremely) motivated when self interest is in pursuit. A private business owner will work 20 hours if it benefits his/her bottom line. A politician will cut or raise taxes if it means re-election. Any rational human being will behave in a way that he/she benefits something.

Case and point. You mentioned if the insurance companies could have their say, they’d be a fire department on ever corner, ready, willing, and able. Again, because it is in their best interest.

However, government should provide basic services, i.e. homeland protection, justice system, police, fire, ambulance, etc.

Who knows, it would depend on the fire. In any case, a business that does not charge enough to cover its costs would not last. Maybe the price would be $300, maybe not – but there will be a price where entrepreneurs will enter.

“But, what about the “I’ll pay anything” line. Now the company can charge any amount, maybe even the full cost of putting out the fire plus 9% (because you want to make money) and that would be a net gain for the business. Only, you can’t assume that he will pay you just because he says so.”

Mobile banking, electronic transaction, credit check, arrangement with an insurer etc…

He says that “They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that”.

Only, you guessed it, its not as simple as that. This guy clearly hasn’t spent very much time in business to know how obviously false that assumption is. He is assuming that because the guy was offering to pay money, then the fire would have been put out because the private business is out to make money so they would have taken the money and the service would have been rendered.

The only problem is that they couldn’t just collect $75 and put out the fire on the spot because then NO ONE would ever pay the service fee until their house caught fire. And the cost of putting out just his fire would GREATLY exceed $75 anyway. So by just collecting the fee, the company would have LOST money on the transaction. Therefore the fire would NOT have been put out.

But, what about the “I’ll pay anything” line. Now the company can charge any amount, maybe even the full cost of putting out the fire plus 9% (because you want to make money) and that would be a net gain for the business. Only, you can’t assume that he will pay you just because he says so. This guy’s house is on fire, he has much higher priorities after the fire is out, than paying the company. Depending on the destruction, he may have immediate needs that are far greater. Not good for the company.

So, they would need to break out some serious paper work to ensure that he would be indebted to the company. And this guy is SUPER risky as an investment because he is entering into the relationship ALREADY with huge amounts of financial chaos.

Not to mention the MASSIVE problem of the contract law concept known as “Duress.” The Duress concept says that contracts are basically UNENFORCEABLE if signed under duress. It would be child’s play to litigate that the gentlemen would NOT have to pay the company because the contract was signed under the duress of his house burning down.

It has already been demonstrated that free market options are limited by socialist policy. The owner of the structure that burned had choices, although limited by policy, for protection in the event of fire.

Thus far all the comments have focused on public vs. private fire protection institutions.

This does not give free market options full consideration.
Are there free market options for automatic sprinkler systems that engage when smoke or fire is detected?

If these are available, would the decision to purchase be effected by manditory participation in tax-supported fire districts?

If they are not available, why not?

The question in light of the availability of automatic sprinkler systems where participation in a fire district is voluntary is, why not have automatic fire protection?

There is no “displacement;” the county residents of Obion outside of the village simply are not paying taxes for fire protection.

If they chose to pay for a private fire brigades services, they would be paying only that single fee, since nobody is taxing them or forcing them to pay for any other fire protection fees from the “socialist” village.

It’s rather childish and silly to suggest that this Displacement Effect is untrue simply because, in some contexts, the displacement or inhibition of private enterprise is something less than complete and absolute. After all, you are the one who has been prattling on and on about how there are degrees of freedom and unfreedom. That much is true, and the same principle applies here — there are degrees of displacement/inhibition of private enterprise.

In many cases, the displacement is total (e.g., Obion County), and in some cases the displacement exists, but the situation still allows some small room for a reduced level of private enterprise activity to survive the Soviet-style domination of the local industry (e.g., California wildfire response).

I submit that the latter scenario (a partial displacement) occurs where the incomes of residents are sufficiently high that they can afford to pay both the socialist fire taxes and the private fire-response fees as well, and where the property values are sufficiently high to justify that double payment.

If your “Big Idea” held true, there wouldn’t be any free market anywhere in the US, because government has the power to just take it away by whim – as it sometimes does, eg., Obomney Care.

Despite government socialized programs and their hindrances on free markets, there is plenty of free market business going on in the US, and your “Big Idea” fails the basic sniff test.

This is my last shot. If you don’t grasp what I’m about to say, then you never will.

With regard to the in-town residents, they pay taxes to the socialist fire department. Outside the limits, the town does not tax, because it can’t. I’m pretty sure you follow me so far.

Here’s the Big Idea — The in-town socialiist fire department, by its very existence, displaces and inhibits any viable private fire company from forming anywhere within the socialist fire department’s service area.

Not only is it virtually impossible to compete against a statist rival that has no concerns over pricing and customer service, but the city can annex the private company’s service area at any time and shut it down overnight.

This displacement effect is an example of what is commonly called “economics.” The presence of the statist, socialist fire department has far-reaching secondary and tertiary economic effects beyond the limited number of people who are taxed to pay for it.

So, your suggestion that someone start a private rival company fails to account for the fact that there’s a reason this is not happening. Understanding economics requires that one consider not only what is actually happening, but also what is not happening.

Around here, that’s called understanding both the “Seen and the Unseen.”

Any fool can account for what is Seen, given sufficient time and patience. It takes a little more effort to account for the Unseen effects of something — which are the things that do not occur that otherwise would have occurred.

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation%20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf

You really don’t get it.

The governmental fire department is not “in business.”.

It has the power to tax. It has the power to seize your property if you do not pay what it unilaterally decides you are going to pay.

No private company is going to enter a market where the existing service is being provided by an organization that can snap its fingers to get any money it wants, and can change the rules any time it wants. It can also, at any time, unilaterally declare that your private business is closed.

The only time this can happen is where the local statist, Soviet fire department has degenerated so thoroughly that it would be a political liability to squelch the only vendors who are rescuing people on a regular basis. Until the Soviet model of fire service has almost fully collapsed, as in California, it displaces private entrepreneurial initiative.

Fact: There is no forcibly maintained monopoly in Obion county for the vast majority of 37,000 county residents outside of the small village of 2,500 population.Nobody is making them pay taxes. Nobody is forcing them to spend any money on fire services. And nobody is stopping anybody from setting up their own private fire brigade and taking on subscribers or contracting with insurance companies.

Obion County, TN, is open for business. Much of the US is open for business. Even California is open for business. Yes, even in California, private insurance fire brigades are already protecting their clients houses from wildfires.

So fellas, quit yer belly-achin’, and buy some land, throw up a pole barn, find some trucks, hire a few hats, and start taking subscribers or contracting with insurance companies in Obion County.

Whoever can git’er’dunn in Obion county, I’ll buy ‘em a cigarette holder. That way the entrepreneurial hero can celebrate man’s victory over fire! And after dousing the first flames on your first call, you can trace a dollar sign in the sky!

You might even drive the mayor’s fire brigade out of business in the small village. That would be a PR victory for libertarianism like none other.

P.S. Don’t let non-subscribers houses burn, or Mr. Tucker will deny you as fast as Peter did Jesus. There’s got to be a way to convince subscribers to pay fees even though you’ll spray if they don’t pay, right?

The fact you are ignoring is there is no “public untility” monopoly in Obion County, for 37,000 county residents outside of the small village of 2,500 population.

Today, you could go there, buy land, get trucks, hire some hats, and start your own fire brigade.

Just like private insurance companies are forming private fire departments in California to protect clients’ homes from wildfires.

Quit your belly aching! Get that entrepreneurial spirit and some investors! Nobody is stopping anybody from doing it.

There is no forcibly maintained monopoly in Obion county for the vast majority of residents.

County residents, outside of the small town, in Tennessee have no fire service monopoly over them. Nobody is making them pay taxes. Nobody is forcing them to spend any money on fire services.

Buy the trucks and start taking subscribers or contracting with insurance companies. It should profitable if what you say is true.

Nobody is stopping anybody from setting up their own private fire brigade and taking on subscribers or contracting with insurance companies. Private insurance fire brigades are already forming in California and protecting their clients houses from wildfires.

I think Mr. Brian Bowman brings up an interesting point, that it would be difficult to go directly to pure free markets from our current starting point of quasi-socialism.

The intellectual heavy lifting showing that liberty is a more ethical and cost effective means to organize society has been done. However, how do you get to more liberty and less government from this point. If one were to attempt to unwind government market intrusions, what would be a good way of going about it without events such as this one creating “public” outcry which would be used by those seeking power and then lead right back to government intrusions? Given the current cultural climate in the U.S., can government intervention be rolled back to say its levels in the early 1800s? How about 1900? How about 1980?

Freer markets would emerge as government interventions are removed, events such as this would occur. Would the public continue to march toward freer markets or return to the mistakenly perceived safety of government? Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, much greater costs are incurred. But to many people these costs are unseen and therefore not considered.

We must entertain the possibility that a free market would not provide “general” fire brigade service because home owners would be willing to take the risks. However, at some point in the future, a market may develop because an entreprenuer builds a more cost effective fire brigade system for which customers are willing to pay. Or are we going the other direction, toward making fire brigade services unneeded, because we are building better homes and buildings, to a point where it is more cost effective to insure the building for fire and let it burn and rebuild? I don’t know the answers to any of those questions, but I do know that currently a great majority of the populace would rather have tax paid/subsidized fire brigade service than none at all. Even if it is at greater cost.

Perhaps this man whose house burned didn’t know that he would get no fire brigade service if he didn’t pay his $75 fee. Maybe he thought he would be able to purchase on the spot. Or maybe he knew the risks of not paying the $75 fee and made a conscious decision to accept them. I don’t know how he made his decision.

My conclusion in this is that: yes it was unfortunate that this man’s house burned down whether or not he paid his $75 fee. I am grateful no one was seriously hurt. And that’s enough rambling by me.

If there is a mortgage on the property (likely), in a free market with private fire companies, the lender may demand the homeowner carry fire service insurance as a part of the loan contract (since it wouldn’t be provided through government theft). Or perhaps the lender would only demand that I carry standard homeowners insurance. But the homeowners insurance would likely give me a decent discount should I also carry fire service insurance. They’d probably sell the product, then pay the fire company the necessary fees to keep them in existence.

Also, Drs. existed long before health insurance, mandated or not. So to state that private fire companies would not exist without mandated fire insurance (via government taxation) is a bit of a stretch.

Finally, government fire services don’t stop house fires from occurring, nor do they prevent houses from being partially or fully destroyed. Its not as though if he had simply paid his $75, this man’s house would’ve been miraculously saved. Likely it would’ve sufferred extensive smoke damage (at minimum) and then water damage from putting out the fire. It also may have sufferred significant loss from the fire itself, depending on how quickly the fire service was able to get it under control. The cost to restore the government “saved” house may have been just as much to rebuild.