Comments on: Let em burn

By: Dave Skinner

Dave Skinner — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:00:10 +0000

No offense, folks, but it seems that no one here has direct fire experience. The issue is not, as Headwaters Economics (not of the Chicago school, no sirree) posits, homes in the woods; but rather the fact of escapement from federal ownerships. The feds have not managed their vegetation and even if they wanted to, litigation ties them up. Massive wildfires need a place to start, and that is not some homeowner’s back yard. Instead, it’s way out in the toolies in a hard-to-access place, the fire gets a head up, and away it goes.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:45:06 +0000

A point that has not been addressed in this matter is that there should be no surprise that a forest service employee would make a statement such as “this is a Forest Service fire, not a private fire.â€ If one looks at the bureaucratic nature of the Forest Service and its true function as a retirement plan for individuals with an I.Q. of 90 or less, then statements such as the one above would come as no shock. The reasonable man might think that “a fire is a fire, and that’s that” but to someone who is protecting their job at all costs, the perspective is different.

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:53:33 +0000

The point that I find most interesting is the note that federal officials are seeking millions to pay for the damage. The fire will cause government to grow even larger. Robert Higgs has written about this phenomenon for decades in his “Crisis and Leviathan” and other books.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:52:53 +0000

In responce to which one could say that prices in the competitive order reflect the good’s true worth to consumers, that enhanced competition will reduce prices/increase quality and that firms are inherently more efficient. The extent to which companies can plan and coordinate always fascinates me.

By: Christopher Hettinger

Christopher Hettinger — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:43:03 +0000

Of course statists will respond by saying that these services are extremely expensive.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:29:47 +0000

Fantastic post. Also a great example of why libertarians need not fantasize about a stateless society or spend countless hours explaining “how anarchy would work” to critics. The market is already at work all around us.

By: Dorris

Dorris — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:21:43 +0000

What really sounds ridiculous is Kim Rogers’ statement that it: “â€¦is a Forest Service fire, not a private fire.â€ Since when do we categorize fires into private and not private??? A fire is a fire, and it should be put out by any means possible and by whomever possible. That’s truly like saying I can’t defend myself against an intruder because that’s the business of the local police. I’d be dead many times over before they get there.

By: SK Peterson

SK Peterson — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:21:22 +0000

On a related note, the Spokane Spokesman Review had a front page headline this week about a report by Headwaters Economics on the costs of fire protection for homes built in fire-prone areas: http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/

By: Pierre

Pierre — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:48:35 +0000

This crystalizes so well government’s general disposition to monopolize. And to think that government officials don’t have the intellectual honesty to apply anti-trust legislation to this situation. It’s as if the FAA disapproved of airlines increasing safety on the grounds that it’s “the FAA’s responsibility”.

By: Jon Robinson

Jon Robinson — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:20:06 +0000

Nice post David. Perfect example to show the failure of the government to protect private property in an efficient manner.