Not really.
For those who aren't aware, recently inTennessee, the Fulton County Fire Department stood by and watched as an nonclient citizen's home was burnt to the ground. This has sparked much debate on the blogosphere as an example of the "free market" or TEA Party USA (as Keith Olbermann puts it) at work, implying, as I can only assume, a world where essential services are left to whims of people's ability to pay.
First off, a little correction is needed in that this was anything but the free market at work. The fire department was not a private company in Fulton County, but a government service. The difference is that they charge a fee where most other fire departments in America do not and this "pay to spray" policy was passed by the city's government back in 1990. When you think about it, it's fairly disturbing that the city would permit itself a monopoly in firefighting and then refuse service. This sounds to me very reminiscent of all the arguments against the free market by anti-monopolists, yet this was the government at work.
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume it was a private company and the government provided no fire services in this town. What would happen in a free market situtation? (This is assuming minarchism, not anarcho-capitalism, but I'm open to examples of an anarcho-capitalist solution.)
The first thing we can assume is that there would be more than one fire fighting company in the area. Thus, one company ignoring a fire (they literally showed up at the house and still did nothing) will not garner any customer appreciation and they'll likely lose business to competitors who don't let people's houses burn down, therefore greatly decreasing the chances that they'll stand by and watch it burn. It's important to remember that in this situation the homeowners actually offered to pay on the spot but were still denied service. No fire company with competitors could afford to do that.
There is also the possibilty that, had the person been unable to pay at the moment of the fire, they would simply put it on a "tab" in order to be paid later. If they refused to pay, then they would be forced to obey the contract by the government.
However, the most likely outcome is that the homeowner's insurance company would have its own fire department or one they partnered with, and thus the fee for the department is in the homeowner's insurance premium itself.
These are several ideas for what a real free market would look like right off the top of my head, but it seems that a fair amount of bloggers couldn't even discern the difference between the market and government policy.
For all of government apologists' shortcomings, they do excel in shifting blame.
Anyway, here's a video:
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
It's amazing to me how we can live in a country of pure state-control, but people will constantly blame the free market for this type of crap.
You did a good job at describing how things would truly run in a free economy. I would add that in any society it would obviously be to the benefit of everyone that a fire be put out. Why would any person/insurance company/neighborhood wish for a fire to continue? If a fire was started at my neighbor's house, who just so happened to not be able to pay for a fire team, I would certainly have an incentive to call my own or pay for one myself if I could, seeing as how I would not want his fire growing and then catching on my house.
It would be even better with insurance. Insurance companies would have an incentive to make sure no fire burns out of control around their customers' houses, especially densely populated areas of their customers. It would be financially beneficial for them to make sure no fire is started. Fire prevention would be cheaper on the company than repaying for entire homes. Therefore, it wouldn't really matter who's house it was, it would simply matter that it was a fire that should be stopped before causing too much damage.
However, do any bloggers truly reflect on consequences of people acting in their self-interest? No. Mainly because most of them are too glued to their altruistic, utilitarian bullshit to recognize logic even when it doesn't take more than a few seconds of actual thought to process. Go figure. It's what happens when you have public education for all. Salute the flag, trust the government, go to church, pay your taxes, and fall in line. 12 years of indoctrination.
@J:"However, do any bloggers truly reflect on consequences of people acting in their self-interest? No. Mainly because most of them are too glued to their altruistic, utilitarian bullshit to recognize logic even when it doesn't take more than a few seconds of actual thought to process."
Let's take a few seconds then.
"If a fire was started at my neighbor's house, who just so happened to not be able to pay for a fire team, I would certainly have an incentive to call my own or pay for one myself if I could, seeing as how I would not want his fire growing and then catching on my house."
So if I'm your neighbor, I can rely on your self-interest to pay for my fire team? Nice.
"It would be even better with insurance. Insurance companies would have an incentive to make sure no fire burns out of control around their customers' houses, especially densely populated areas of their customers."
Even better. Now I can start a middleman company that sells insurance at 25% below what the big companies charge. How? I sell big company policies to every other home, insuring the entire town at 50% the cost of insuring every individual home.
And if your fire team policy is to provide a service I didn't order when I can't be reached for the pitch, then I'll make sure to ignore you via caller id. Good luck sending me a bill.
Although the free market is great at innovating products, there is no guarantee that a product will be available in your area or at a price you can afford.
"Although the free market is great at innovating products, there is no guarantee that a product will be available in your area or at a price you can afford."
Obviously there is no guarantee that the government will be able to satisfy the consumers either.
But what is guaranteed in this world? Anything? Is anything really guaranteed? Arguments claiming the free market is bad because it doesn't guarantee anything, outside of implying that the gov't can which it cannot, seems to me based on utopian logic. Utopias are not for this world. However, for any imperfections the free market may have, the imperfections of government out-number them drastically. People often complain that the free market would do nothing to help the poor, but it is that free market that pull the impoverished up the ladder, compared to others in the present they may still be in poverty, but compared to the poor from 100 years ago or maybe even 10 years ago, they would be considered wealthy.
Lets be clear, in a world where fire departments are provided by the market the gov't would most likely be barely existent (or not at all), thus all the other imperfections of the government's doing that land on the poor would not exist, so while not guaranteed, it is much MUCH more likely that the poor would be freed up enough to be able to afford essential services (and this is excluding things like private charities).
Also, the people in this case simply forgot to pay, instances like this are not failures of the market, but failures of responsibility.
"Obviously there is no guarantee that the government will be able to satisfy the consumers either."
Actually...
Consider Dallas, TX. Some common free market services are not provided to low income areas because (I assume) that the cost of creating that infrastructure is too high relative projected income. Drive across a highway into a different neighborhood, and premium services/infrastructure are suddenly available.
But when there are fires in low income neighborhoods, the firefighters are there. At least in this case, one approach seems much more dependable than the other.
"Lets be clear,...the other imperfections of the government's doing that land on the poor...it is much MUCH more likely that the poor would be freed up enough to be able to afford essential services..."
I don't know what imperfections holding back the poor you are referring to (progressive taxation? safety net? consumer protections? ...essential services?), but I do agree with the rising-tide-lifts-all-boats logic. But if the tide is purchased with the removal of rules that make the economic game more playable for the poor, the tide does not maintain a proportional power relationship between the classes.
IOW, the flyweight gets paid $1,000 more per fight to stay within arm's reach of Mike Tyson. NOT a good deal.
"But when there are fires in low income neighborhoods, the firefighters are there. At least in this case, one approach seems much more dependable than the other."
Economics is not a sccience where events can be replicated, looking specifically at one place in Texas and then bouncing to Tennessee to compare them as examples of a free market/non-free market is misleading and doesn't tell anyone anything really
"I don't know what imperfections holding back the poor you are referring to (progressive taxation? safety net? consumer protections? ...essential services?)"
The largest one I would say is inflation, printing money almost always bears its burden on the poor who must deal with rising prices without the benefit of increased pay that most higher income people earn simultaneously (its just the nature of credit expansion).
Taxation yes, it hurts anybody, but it bear more of a burden on the poor even if it progressive.
The minimum wage causes institutional unemployment and those unemployed by it are teens and the poor.
This safety net idea always intrigued me, first it is implied that if someone hits rock bottom in a free society then they'll be left to the elements, which isn't true and pre-welfare America is proof of the strength of private charity, but also that the safety net is more of a goo that people get stuck in. Subsidize something and you get more of it, that includes being poor. The government is constantly raising the income cutoff point for things like welfare, hell, if you make 200% more than the poverty line you get food stamps.
Consumer protections are a sham. Another non-guarantee by the government portraying itself as one. For a business to be prosperous in the long term they have to be do more than cost cutting, they essentially have to be ethical...the market forces them to. The best consumer protection is the market.
Plus a lot of consumer harm comes from sheer consumer irresponsibility.
And very indirectly, government has been working (maybe not intentionally) throughout the 20th century to limit the productive capacities of industry. Only through capital expansion (which can only come throug saving) is the standard of living raised. Not to mention the government causes the boom bust cycle.
"Economics is not a sccience where events can be replicated, looking specifically at one place in Texas and then bouncing to Tennessee to compare them as examples of a free market/non-free market is misleading and doesn't tell anyone anything really."
My example was meant to point out the simple notion that business goes where there is money to be made, not necessarily where services are needed. Government mandates services where they are needed. I think those are generalities we can agree on.
But you do make a good point. We can't have any real clue how well your libertarian free market would compare to our current scenario until you actually create one for us to analyze. Thats a sword with 2 sharp edges.
"The best consumer protection is the market."
No, I don't think so.
The rest of those government harms are very debatable, and we don't have that kind of room here. But it sounds a little like you are saying the government prevents the poor from earning 1 scrap by giving them 2, prevents them from protecting themselves from products by creating rules to protect them, and that the poor would be better off in a system where yesterday's money is worth more tomorrow. I realize those are characterization you wouldn't agree with, but I think there's more than one side to your claims.
Not everything needs to be handled through formal contracts, companies, employer/employee relationships, etc.
Some things, such as fire protection, are probably better handled by coordinated community efforts, mutual aid/insurance societies, civic groups, etc. Not everything is about imagining some way for some third-party, at arms-length, to make a profit off of providing a service. Actually the vast majority of human relationships aren't like that, and the degree to which they are, in modern society, is often due to the state-assisted centralization and assimilation of autonomous communities into a massive collective of strangers who have less incentive to cooperate without a monetary reward.
I'm surprised no one is actually blaming the fire chief who allowed this to happen. It sounds more of a case where someone had a grudge against the non-paying citizens. What is the worst thing that would have happened to the guy if he had taken the landowner's money? It sounds like the fire department was trying to send a message to the non-paying residents. This reminds me of something I would expect to see on The Sopranos.
That leads me to another question. How is a bureaucrat who decides to let a house burn down due to non-payment different from an insurance company official who refuses to pay out an insurance policy because fees are owed? Also, would there really be multiple fire departments fighting over hard to reach rural areas, or would they treat these areas like FedEx and UPS often do and just not serve them all together?
The difference is the bureaucrat has a guaranteed income, the insurance employees do not. Long term prosperity for a company depends on more than cutting costs, but being ethical, even if it is simply a facade.
And we can't know about the possibilities of fire departments can we, but comparing a company that would exist in an almost stateless society with 2 that essentially compete with a state run service is probably not the best route to take.