Should we privatise the fire department? (2 Viewers)

[zombie omie jay]

dont we all m8
dont we all

 

[cosmo kramer]

classic dubbo

tales from dubbo

 

[Cianyx]

http://www.amazon.com/Protocols-Elders-Zion-ebook/dp/B002IVUCS4c

i love technology. look at the "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" section.

http://www.amazon.com/PROTOCOL-ELDE...EHZA/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1315115274&sr=8-5
Protocols as a mouse pad

 

[cosmo kramer]

holy fuck i want that

 

[funkshen]

classic dubbo

tales from dubbo

 

[cosmo kramer]

life is like a mild breeze
here in dubbo
abos, bogans sudanese
it really dub-blows
might go to the western plains zoo
or get pissed at the amaroo
dubbo

danger! watch behind you
there's a abo out to knife you
what to do just grab on to some dubbo tales

 

[zombie omie jay]

spectacular

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It would make most sense for insurance companies to work closely with fire companies or offer the fire services themselves.

Since they are liable for almost the entire value of the loss (in most cases) they would have the most incentive to provide a very high quality service.

Even if some people don't insure themselves, neighbouring properties could still call their insurance companies who would have every incentive to respond quickly.

 

[SylviaB]

[youtube]EAhgbzl8kCc[/youtube]

yeah this topic is a piece of piss

 

[abbeyroad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_fire_department

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

[youtube]EAhgbzl8kCc[/youtube]

yeah this topic is a piece of piss

I found this to be a rather convoluted explanation.

I don't agree with its assumption that "public goods" exist and that law and order is one of them.

Legitimate law and order should be about the protection of persons and property. It is very easy to exclude property from those services (especially in the case of the fire service).

As for protection of people, the provision of protective services would be based more on where you are geographically, than the police checking you have a card or something before they help you.

Almost all owners of residential and commercial property of any kind would have contracts with security firms as they would want customers and employees to feel secure at all times.

Rouge shopping malls or office blocks with no security would almost certainly go out of business very fast.

 

[SylviaB]

I don't agree with its assumption that "public goods" exist and that law and order is one of them.

How can public goods not exist? If you live near other people you house will get put out if on fire regardless of whether you pay or not.

The "order" side of things is generally not a public good, unless your neighbourhood needs security guards or something, beacause you will be protected even if you refuse to chip in for the bill.

Legitimate law and order should be about the protection of persons and property. It is very easy to exclude property from those services (especially in the case of the fire service).

What if I own a house out of town and someone breaks into my house and murders my wife, for example, and I chose not to subscribe to a legal agency?

There isn't the immediate "we need to protect people when in our business" element, nor can I fall back on the legal services of my neighbourhood.

Of course, people aren't total selfish dicks and will want to see justice delivered, so it's not as though the murder will go uninvestigated because I didn't pay legal fees. But people are still footing the bill for me, disincentivisng my payment of legal fees. And of course, this doesn't apply exclusively to the above situation. It applies to people living everyone, but obviously to a lesser degree and in a far less explicit manner.

As for protection of people, the provision of protective services would be based more on where you are geographically, than the police checking you have a card or something before they help you.

Almost all owners of residential and commercial property of any kind would have contracts with security firms as they would want customers and employees to feel secure at all times.

Rouge shopping malls or office blocks with no security would almost certainly go out of business very fast.

No shit

but the primary free rider problem, though not covered in this video, is defence.

for example, if australia were to become a stateless society but other states in the world remained, it would become an instant target for other states, necessitiating some "nationa" defence. Given that it is impossible to protect the area formerly known as western australia from chinese invasion but let them do what they want with the former quensland, or protect one neighbourhood but not another, everyone everywhere will have to receive protection reardless of whether they pay or not. MASSIVE free rider proble, and one that has not imo been adequetely addressed by any austrolibertarian.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

How can public goods not exist?

Basically, there is always a creative way to exclude free riders.

If you live near other people you house will get put out if on fire regardless of whether you pay or not.

Eventually, but the response time will be slower. They don't even have to put it out straight away. They can simply contain it so it burns your house down and burns out before spreading to the neighbours.

The "order" side of things is generally not a public good, unless your neighbourhood needs security guards or something, beacause you will be protected even if you refuse to chip in for the bill.

I would suggest most communities would have compulsory payment through a strata fees type arrangement that you agree to when you purchase your house/apartment. You could always choose to live in a rouge community if you wanted and use your own guns, kung fu ect. if you preferred. Everyone can choose a community with the level of security that suits them.

What if I own a house out of town and someone breaks into my house and murders my wife, for example, and I chose not to subscribe to a legal agency?

Tough shit. It's very unlikely the police would have responded in time under the current status quo anyway, your best chance in this situation is always going to be with your own firearms.

There isn't the immediate "we need to protect people when in our business" element, nor can I fall back on the legal services of my neighbourhood.

Of course, people aren't total selfish dicks and will want to see justice delivered, so it's not as though the murder will go uninvestigated because I didn't pay legal fees. But people are still footing the bill for me, disincentivisng my payment of legal fees. And of course, this doesn't apply exclusively to the above situation. It applies to people living everyone, but obviously to a lesser degree and in a far less explicit manner.

Most crime is not dramatic stuff like murder. It's predominantly property crime. I would think it would be most effective to tie enforcement to insurance, so if you don't pay, you don't get indemnified.

The focus should be on restitution to victims rather than ineffective, counter productive punishments like prison.

In the case of murder, if you get killed but have no security, the security firm will still investigate for the good of its other customers, but you get no life insurance payout.

but the primary free rider problem, though not covered in this video, is defence.

for example, if australia were to become a stateless society but other states in the world remained, it would become an instant target for other states, necessitiating some "nationa" defence. Given that it is impossible to protect the area formerly known as western australia from chinese invasion but let them do what they want with the former quensland, or protect one neighbourhood but not another, everyone everywhere will have to receive protection reardless of whether they pay or not. MASSIVE free rider proble, and one that has not imo been adequetely addressed by any austrolibertarian.

haha, i thought you where smarter than this red dragon bullshit.

no developed country has been invaded since 1945, for one basic reason; it. does. not. work.

people rave about "our" resources in Australia, but mining is still only ~10% of our GDP. Most of the value added in post industrialised economies comes from skilled workers in service sectors. You can't enslave financial analysts, or medical researchers and force them to produce better results. You can't invade and steal brand value.

The enormous cost of invading Australia cannot be justified at all, and even if it could be done costlessly it would probably result in a net loss for countries like China which do very well out of trading with us. China makes money selling us stuff they're good at producing and buys stuff we're good at producing. Everyone wins.

It would be like if you're the town baker, murdering the town doctor, stealing his surgery and medical supplies and then trying to treat yourself. You're better off baking bread and paying him to do it.

 

[SylviaB]

Eventually, but the response time will be slower. They don't even have to put it out straight away. They can simply contain it so it burns your house down and burns out before spreading to the neighbours.

Looking like sadistic bastards, great for business.

I would suggest most communities would have compulsory payment through a strata fees type arrangement that you agree to when you purchase your house/apartment. You could always choose to live in a rouge community if you wanted and use your own guns, kung fu ect. if you preferred. Everyone can choose a community with the level of security that suits them.

What about people already living there who don't agree to it.

Tough shit. It's very unlikely the police would have responded in time under the current status quo anyway, your best chance in this situation is always going to be with your own firearms.

I don't mean protection, I mean prosecution.

Most crime is not dramatic stuff like murder. It's predominantly property crime. I would think it would be most effective to tie enforcement to insurance, so if you don't pay, you don't get indemnified.

This doesn't overcome the lack of excludibility on the protection side of things.

The focus should be on restitution to victims rather than ineffective, counter productive punishments like prison.

Well if you mean that as long as the victim gets a payout, then that's all that matters, then that's dumb. Regardless of what you think things "should" be, in reality people want punishment in some form, and would be outraged if a serious crime as committed but the only ones who are 'punished' are insurance agencies.

no developed country has been invaded since 1945, for one basic reason; it. does. not. work.

How many stateless societites have there been since 1945?

The situation is COMPLETELY different to that of invading a statist soceity.

people rave about "our" resources in Australia, but mining is still only ~10% of our GDP. Most of the value added in post industrialised economies comes from skilled workers in service sectors. You can't enslave financial analysts, or medical researchers and force them to produce better results. You can't invade and steal brand value.

It has nothing to do with slavery. Heck, forget China, the invading forces would probably invade under the guise of a humanitarian mission, like the UN in partnership with america or something. All they have to do is make life miserable enough for the population before the true benfits of statelessness are allowed to emerge, and a state will be seen as "necessary" to save us from the horrors of anarchy. Because really, unless done precisely and slowly (not liekly), the abolition of the staet will not be pretty to begin with.
Oh, and resources would comprise a far greater percentage were it not for regulations and other statist economic distortions, not that it matters for my argument.

And by the way, I think this problem can be overcome. I'm not arguing against statelessness. I'm arguing against this magical capitalist world where no one can get benefits from anyone else without their permission or without some indirect profit being involved.

Additonally, why do Hoppe et al write so much about it if it isn't worth considering?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Heck, forget China, the invading forces would probably invade under the guise of a humanitarian mission, like the UN in partnership with america or something. All they have to do is make life miserable enough for the population before the true benfits of statelessness are allowed to emerge, and a state will be seen as "necessary" to save us from the horrors of anarchy.

haha omg. They totally would do that.

 

[SylviaB]

why wouldnt they

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

why wouldnt they

No sarcasm intended. That is pretty much spot on.