I read about a guy in his 80s who did the DIY equivalent of this. He was concerned about fire danger so spent years and much savings preparing. He built a large water tank, got lots of pro fire fighting gear including a full bunker suit with breathing gear, etc. The fire happened, burned out his neighbors, but by actively fighting it he saved his property.
Regardless of whether of not the right amount of taxes are spent on public firefighting, this seems admirable to me. If he had hired someone else to fight the fire, his foresight and preparation, if perhaps not his personal courage, would be as admirable.
I sense fear. Is it not ok to tell the world that you're scared even if you have no solution to offer?
The fear is that a public service that should, within their capability, protect everyone without discrimination is over time going to be replaced by private services that only protect those who can pay.
I believe that is the point. Now we can contemplate whether that fear is justified, whether it should be dismissed, or if something should be done to resolve it.
Of course security and safety is already a privilege of the rich (to an extent), but you could go further in that direction. Or try to swing back.
* fires are becoming an increasing problem and there isn't a sound, coordinated, public effort to deal with them right now; if the wealthy, who generally have a lot of political power, are shielded from the fire issue through their personal wealth, then there could be a diminished incentive to solve the problem generally for the public
* it's hard to fight fires and the wealthy could marshal firefighters that are needed for public usage and the public might not offer enough compensation/resources to protect the public
It's just as arguable to say that this is an entirely natural consequence of government taking over an industry, and then eventually fails to provide the level of service the market demands.
Basic economics- demand of a service exceeds supply, expect newcomers to provide said service at a premium price.
The problem I have with people soaking negatively about this is: the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win.
Also, firefighting should be left to the properly trained, if not professionals. While I suppose the same argument could be made for nannies, I'd argue child rearing is much more forgiving to novice mistakes.
[+] [-] hirundo|6 years ago|reply
Regardless of whether of not the right amount of taxes are spent on public firefighting, this seems admirable to me. If he had hired someone else to fight the fire, his foresight and preparation, if perhaps not his personal courage, would be as admirable.
[+] [-] fortran77|6 years ago|reply
What are they proposing? That people with means be prohibited from hiring people to perform services for them?
[+] [-] clarry|6 years ago|reply
The fear is that a public service that should, within their capability, protect everyone without discrimination is over time going to be replaced by private services that only protect those who can pay.
I believe that is the point. Now we can contemplate whether that fear is justified, whether it should be dismissed, or if something should be done to resolve it.
Of course security and safety is already a privilege of the rich (to an extent), but you could go further in that direction. Or try to swing back.
[+] [-] leoh|6 years ago|reply
* fires are becoming an increasing problem and there isn't a sound, coordinated, public effort to deal with them right now; if the wealthy, who generally have a lot of political power, are shielded from the fire issue through their personal wealth, then there could be a diminished incentive to solve the problem generally for the public
* it's hard to fight fires and the wealthy could marshal firefighters that are needed for public usage and the public might not offer enough compensation/resources to protect the public
[+] [-] anonygler|6 years ago|reply
Our society is offensive, yes, but this is an entirely natural consequence of an unfettered accumulation of wealth.
Private Security, Private School, Private Transit, etc. Why not Private Firefighting?
[+] [-] beerandt|6 years ago|reply
Basic economics- demand of a service exceeds supply, expect newcomers to provide said service at a premium price.
The problem I have with people soaking negatively about this is: the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win.
Also, firefighting should be left to the properly trained, if not professionals. While I suppose the same argument could be made for nannies, I'd argue child rearing is much more forgiving to novice mistakes.
[+] [-] KC8ZKF|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neonate|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foogazi|6 years ago|reply
Why does everything have to be socialized?
[+] [-] txgxyxdkssppg|6 years ago|reply
I don't have any further commentary.
[+] [-] RickJWagner|6 years ago|reply
Barbra Streisand, Cher, and a host of others were exposed in a 'Good for thee, but not for me' moment.
Not all are bad, though. Jennifer Aniston tore out her sod and landscaped her property with drought-resistant foliage. There are some good ones!
[+] [-] aaron695|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]