• SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Firefighters should be a private enterprise and figure their revenue streams out themselves. They don’t need the government telling them how to run a business.

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Roads can easily made all private for-profit toll roads and people could decide for themselves if they want to use the McHighways or the WalMiles.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Roads are a complicated issue. I feel that roads fall under the idea of an “intrinsic monopoly” – by their very existence, they create a monopoly, and are thus anti-competitive, and thus anti-free-market.

    • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would argue that it depends on context. Take the following two examples:

      1. A densly packed urban environment
      2. A rural countryside with sparsely placed dwellings

      In the first example, a fire on one person’s property can quickly threaten the property of many others around it. This danger could be argued to be so great that, if in a system where each individual must pay for fire services, and one individual does not, this can be seen as a threat to the livelihood of others – a form of “aggression”, if you will. It would be in everyone’s best interest to have a municipal, or community fire department that the public pays for.

      In the second example, no dwelling, or proprety is realistically a threat to any other. The only danger is to one’s own property. As a result, it could be argued that, in such a situation, the individual could not be expected to pay for the fire service. If they wish to have its benefits, they could choose to pay, say, a subscription fee.