Heck the majority of fire departments are organized, funded, and staffed directly by the people they protect. How is that not a free market solution?
Okay, DD…
Now I know we are talking theory. Most people couldn’t even begin to afford those kinds of things, putting the safety of most of the citizens at risk.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay, DD…
Now I know we are talking theory. Most people couldn’t even begin to afford those kinds of things, putting the safety of most of the citizens at risk.
Mufasa[/quote]
Like I said, those are all part of the free market. You can go that way if you choose. Fire protection is really a free market, as in they are not generally publicly funded. But additionally, aren’t most ambulances privately owned. They are generally operated by hospitals aren’t they? I’m not sure what the numbers are but I’m betting the majority of EMS service is already essentially privately operated.
Interesting.
(Now I’m starting to confuse myself…!)
DD…I’m talking about FIRE and POLICE, and bunching them all under EMS (which is not correct).
EMS services are a mixture of both public and private.
So I’ll restate by question:
When it comes to FIRE and POLICE services: are we “better off” having 1) a sort of “regulated monopoly”, OR 2) having them be more open to the “free market”?
That’s what I have to get my head wrapped around. (I’m leaning toward the former).
Mufasa
Related to the link…
Looks like EMS services are regulated on a LOT of levels, from Federal to Local.
Mufasa
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Here’s an idea - negotiate your own deal based on the market like a big boy or girl - if you don’t like it look somewhere else. It’s a big free country out there.
Why does anyone need some union to protect them - do your job and do it well and the rest will take care of itself. Only the lousy teachers and workers need the union to protect them. Employers don’t get rid of good and productive employees.
When you get hosed move on as soon as you can - don’t always expect big daddy government or big daddy union to come wipe your little bent out of shape nose. People are getting tired of this union baby bull crap.[/quote]
What happens when your job has no connection to the free market, like cops and firefighters?[/quote]
You mean like the majority of firefighters in existence whom are volunteers? That seems to work pretty well in a free market.[/quote]
Volunteer or career, makes no difference. The municipality has a monopoly on your fire service, and competes with nobody; hence, no free market. [/quote]
No, you are confusing free marked with no monopolies. A free marked is one that isn’t artificially manipulated by a governing body. Big difference.[/quote]
how is a market free under the thumb of a government run monopoly?
No, they don’t. Fire departments are generally funded through a series of taxes(property taxes, etc.) You cannot “opt out” of your fire service any more than you can “opt out” of paying for your local schools.
Really? So where you live you have multiple options for fire service, and have the option of opting out of fire service altogether? I’m betting not.
Right, so why don’t you? I mean, why hasn’t anybody done this? Surely there must’ve been an acute business mind somewhere that this idea has occurred to, right? Or perhaps the onerous cost of starting and running a fire service makes a ROI almost impossible.
For the record, there are a few (very few) private fire departments in this country, but I believe that they’re limited to very rural areas who normally would have an all volunteer fire service anyways.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Now I’m starting to confuse myself…!)
DD…I’m talking about FIRE and POLICE, and bunching them all under EMS (which is not correct).
EMS services are a mixture of both public and private.
So I’ll restate by question:
When it comes to FIRE and POLICE services: are we “better off” having 1) a sort of “regulated monopoly”, OR 2) having them be more open to the “free market”?
That’s what I have to get my head wrapped around. (I’m leaning toward the former).
Mufasa [/quote]
First, I think that even the places that are essentially monopolies are natural ones. Regulations don’t force it. I think most of that is open to the free market. You can get private companies for most of that (private investigators, security, est.).
Like I said fire departments really and truly are generally private non-profit organizations.
They are already open to the free market. Are you saying that we would be better off with the government taking all of that over and doing away with all private entries into that market?
I think we do okay now.
I’ll tell you what…here in good ol’ Utard we are pretty down on the Unions, Right wing prevalence and all.
But, we have a brand spanking new 750 million Proctor & Gamble facility that fled a heavy unonized state…a nice new 500 million addition to an eBay facility that was moved from California…a nice new Amazon facility and a 500K square foot Wal Mart distribution center just broke ground.
Lots of high paying jobs, because our state has a pro-business stance…Make fun of the fly over states all you want, but guess who survived the recession the best?
Unions are a thing of the turn of the century…to compete with China and India one must adapt…sorry for the rest of you.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Here’s an idea - negotiate your own deal based on the market like a big boy or girl - if you don’t like it look somewhere else. It’s a big free country out there.
Why does anyone need some union to protect them - do your job and do it well and the rest will take care of itself. Only the lousy teachers and workers need the union to protect them. Employers don’t get rid of good and productive employees.
When you get hosed move on as soon as you can - don’t always expect big daddy government or big daddy union to come wipe your little bent out of shape nose. People are getting tired of this union baby bull crap.[/quote]
What happens when your job has no connection to the free market, like cops and firefighters?[/quote]
You mean like the majority of firefighters in existence whom are volunteers? That seems to work pretty well in a free market.[/quote]
Volunteer or career, makes no difference. The municipality has a monopoly on your fire service, and competes with nobody; hence, no free market. [/quote]
This is an interesting point.
There are two sides to this - the “consumer” side and the “labor” side.
From the “consumer” perspective - you’re right, these services are monopolized by the municipality or the state.
From the “labor” side however - working for your state/municipality is not the only option, if they can find another employer who is willing to pay more - the municipality will be forced to pay more to attract/keep the employees.
So the supply/demand rule is still there.[/quote]
The problem is, when a municipality is competing with nobody, there’s no incentive for producing the best service, and no incentive to pay top dollar for the most experienced/best firefighters. There is no free market competition driving a municipality towards a superior service which would require the best labor.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Here’s an idea - negotiate your own deal based on the market like a big boy or girl - if you don’t like it look somewhere else. It’s a big free country out there.
Why does anyone need some union to protect them - do your job and do it well and the rest will take care of itself. Only the lousy teachers and workers need the union to protect them. Employers don’t get rid of good and productive employees.
When you get hosed move on as soon as you can - don’t always expect big daddy government or big daddy union to come wipe your little bent out of shape nose. People are getting tired of this union baby bull crap.[/quote]
What happens when your job has no connection to the free market, like cops and firefighters?[/quote]
You mean like the majority of firefighters in existence whom are volunteers? That seems to work pretty well in a free market.[/quote]
Volunteer or career, makes no difference. The municipality has a monopoly on your fire service, and competes with nobody; hence, no free market. [/quote]
No, you are confusing free marked with no monopolies. A free marked is one that isn’t artificially manipulated by a governing body. Big difference.[/quote]
how is a market free under the thumb of a government run monopoly?
No, they don’t. Fire departments are generally funded through a series of taxes(property taxes, etc.) You cannot “opt out” of your fire service any more than you can “opt out” of paying for your local schools.
Really? So where you live you have multiple options for fire service, and have the option of opting out of fire service altogether? I’m betting not.
Right, so why don’t you? I mean, why hasn’t anybody done this? Surely there must’ve been an acute business mind somewhere that this idea has occurred to, right? Or perhaps the onerous cost of starting and running a fire service makes a ROI almost impossible.
For the record, there are a few (very few) private fire departments in this country, but I believe that they’re limited to very rural areas who normally would have an all volunteer fire service anyways.
[/quote]
Not true. The majority of funding for many departments is private. Even more so when you include volunteers donating time.
Most fire services exist and continue to exist out of the good nature of the local citizens. NOT out of some mandate and funding provided by government. They are started and continue to operate out of the freely driven local demand for the service. Volunteer fire departments have funding and manpower out of the free market. Individuals finding a way to get the job done. Period.
Now, most departments definitely accept federal grants and such, but that isn’t why they are there.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay, DD…
Now I know we are talking theory. Most people couldn’t even begin to afford those kinds of things, putting the safety of most of the citizens at risk.
Mufasa[/quote]
Like I said, those are all part of the free market. You can go that way if you choose. Fire protection is really a free market, as in they are not generally publicly funded.[/quote]
Fire departments are funded through local taxes.
Generally EMS services are not operated by the hospitals; many are non profit (lol) organizations, with many being municipally operated as well. In my neck of the woods, they’re all private non profit companies; some are good, some are horrendously bad. Here’s the catch though, ALL of the ambulance companies rely on the local fire department for first response medical attention and basic life support since they cannot meet the needed response times. It’s called a two tier EMS system; local fire departments respond to be first on scene and provide basic life support, and EMS service arrives on scene after to provide advanced life support.
I certainly am in no position to argue if “most” or “some” fire departments are public or private…or what the population breakdown is with both. (I’m sure the stats exist). Maybe someone has them.
And no, DD…that is not what I’m saying…
What I am trying to understand is whether of not FIRE and POLICE , especially in large municipalities, should be market-driven entities.
I’m thinking not…
But I’m still listening.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I certainly am in no position to argue if “most” or “some” fire departments are public or private…or what the population breakdown is with both. (I’m sure the stats exist). Maybe someone has them.
And no, DD…that is not what I’m saying…
What I am trying to understand is whether of not FIRE and POLICE , especially in large municipalities, should be market-driven entities.
I’m thinking not…
But I’m still listening.
Mufasa[/quote]
I think you underestimate the resourcefulness of individuals to do things that need doing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Here’s an idea - negotiate your own deal based on the market like a big boy or girl - if you don’t like it look somewhere else. It’s a big free country out there.
Why does anyone need some union to protect them - do your job and do it well and the rest will take care of itself. Only the lousy teachers and workers need the union to protect them. Employers don’t get rid of good and productive employees.
When you get hosed move on as soon as you can - don’t always expect big daddy government or big daddy union to come wipe your little bent out of shape nose. People are getting tired of this union baby bull crap.[/quote]
What happens when your job has no connection to the free market, like cops and firefighters?[/quote]
You mean like the majority of firefighters in existence whom are volunteers? That seems to work pretty well in a free market.[/quote]
Volunteer or career, makes no difference. The municipality has a monopoly on your fire service, and competes with nobody; hence, no free market. [/quote]
No, you are confusing free marked with no monopolies. A free marked is one that isn’t artificially manipulated by a governing body. Big difference.[/quote]
how is a market free under the thumb of a government run monopoly?
No, they don’t. Fire departments are generally funded through a series of taxes(property taxes, etc.) You cannot “opt out” of your fire service any more than you can “opt out” of paying for your local schools.
Really? So where you live you have multiple options for fire service, and have the option of opting out of fire service altogether? I’m betting not.
Right, so why don’t you? I mean, why hasn’t anybody done this? Surely there must’ve been an acute business mind somewhere that this idea has occurred to, right? Or perhaps the onerous cost of starting and running a fire service makes a ROI almost impossible.
For the record, there are a few (very few) private fire departments in this country, but I believe that they’re limited to very rural areas who normally would have an all volunteer fire service anyways.
[/quote]
Not true. The majority of funding for many departments is private. Even more so when you include volunteers donating time.
Most fire services exist and continue to exist out of the good nature of the local citizens. NOT out of some mandate and funding provided by government. They are started and continue to operate out of the freely driven local demand for the service. Volunteer fire departments have funding and manpower out of the free market. Individuals finding a way to get the job done. Period.
Now, most departments definitely accept federal grants and such, but that isn’t why they are there. [/quote]
You are correct in stating that there usually isn’t a mandate for fire service, unless you are an incorporated city, then there’s a mandate for both police AND fire.
But, take my township for instance, in 1949 they were tired of the crappy fire response from the county fire department. So, citizens banded together and started their own township fire department. While they did donate their time, ALL of the equipment was bought by the township with money collected through their property taxes. They did not, nor could they have ever afforded to, simply throw some of their own money together and buy the very expensive equipment needed to provide fire protection.
Even “volunteer” departments are funded with taxpayer money, even if the firefighters donate their time.
DD, can I assume that you live in a very rural area?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I certainly am in no position to argue if “most” or “some” fire departments are public or private…or what the population breakdown is with both. (I’m sure the stats exist). Maybe someone has them.
And no, DD…that is not what I’m saying…
What I am trying to understand is whether of not FIRE and POLICE , especially in large municipalities, should be market-driven entities.
I’m thinking not…
But I’m still listening.
Mufasa[/quote]
Rest assured Mufasa, 99.99% of fire departments are publicly funded, even if the firefighters labor is donated time (which is also rare as most “volunteer” ff’s are part paid)
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
DD, can I assume that you live in a very rural area? [/quote]
Unincorporated town with about 5 buildings downtown.
Volunteer fire, no town police.
But that isn’t so different from much of america.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Like I said fire departments really and truly are generally private non-profit organizations.[/quote]
Why don’t you go ahead and back this statement up. I’ve been a firefighter since 1998, full time since 2003, and know this to be absolutely false.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
DD, can I assume that you live in a very rural area? [/quote]
Unincorporated town with about 5 buildings downtown.
Volunteer fire, no town police.
But that isn’t so different from much of america.[/quote]
Ahh, I see. Rural areas generally have very small volunteer fire departments, which generally work out well for them. Here’s the thing, fire service is very much a local need, as in every community has their own unique requirements for an effective fire service. You simply cannot compare the fire service needs in your area, with a community that has vastly different needs for emergency services. In the state of Michigan, there are only three fire departments that are volunteer.
I can see now where you get your point of reference regarding fire service. Are you a member of the department?