"We aren't prophets to predict the future. They argue that it could be, not that it ever will be. Their proof? It already has been privatized, successfully."
Originally, a significant fraction, if not all fire fighting was private. They've been replaced by public companies for the most part. You could argue that the market worked or, if you believe like VMI, you could argue that this is a government conspiracy.
"The question is whether any other contract would be immoral and wrong. You seem to be saying that it would be."
By no means am I making a moral argument. My arguments are based upon practicality. In fact, VMI is the one arguing morality.
"You mean the "very workable solution" in which people who don't own any flammable property are forced to pay, nevertheless, to fund a department to put out the fires they'll never have? Or in which large property owners underpay, and small owners overpay, but in which the decision not to pay at all will get you jailed?"
Isn't the issue whether you benefit from having fires extinguished? Your ownership may be irrelevent to that.
BTW, you are bordering upon making a moral argument.
Any thoughts on Milsted's arguments?
Milsted takes the case of national defense, which is commonly considered an institution that would face the free rider problem if supplied on the market. Argues Milsted: "suppose the majority assesses a tax on everyone to spread the burden of supporting the new defense system. This is theft of the minority. However, suppose that the economies of scale are such that this tax is less than half of what people would have had to pay for defense on their own."
That's the argument, plain and simple. If it is morally permissible to steal when the victim is compensated double, the equation seems to fit.
"Conspiracy"? Our local right-wing radio jock likes to say, "It isn't conspiracy, it's consensus!" For example, colleges aren't giant marxist conspiracies--they just act like they are, because the overwhelming majority of professors and amdinistrators are marxist.
By definition, making something public is not "the market working"; government takeover of fire fighting means that fire fighting is no longer a part of the market. If people truly didn't want firefighting, then "the market working" might involve all fire companies going out of business. But if you check the history of firefighting, you will find that this didn't happen. Instead, politicians were happy to take control of this, like any other function, and the fire departments were happy to go along, knowing that tax funding meant larger salaries than the free market would support.
By no means am I making a moral argument. My arguments are based upon practicality.
I'm not sure if you mean the same thing as "utilitarianism," or indeed whether you're familiar with that subject. But the argument is partly moral, and partly legal. The question is: if I start a fire brigade, can I be punished if I refuse to respond to some call? Should I be? Or, put differently: is it right and proper that I should be forced to respond to any and every fire alarm?
We have laws mandating that a physician treat anyone in a medical emergency. We have "good samaritan" laws that punish anyone for failing to obey certain requests for help. Should such laws exist? Would a just society have them? The question is "moral", but its consequences are eminently practical. You could be arrested tonight for walking past a guy having a heart attack.
Isn't the issue whether you benefit from having fires extinguished? Your ownership may be irrelevent to that.
This is a key argument pro statism. You are postulating an intangible benefit. Namely: I have no property to burn; I have no relatives at risk of fire; I personally don't care one way or another about fire departments, I sincerely have no desire to contribute financially to one. Nevertheless, you believe that I personally benefit from their existence, an dso much so that this benefit outweighs any complaint I might have when you force me to pay for it.
Since this "benefit" is intangible, nebulous, and immeasurable, you win. However great I consider the injustice, you can simply reply that this phantom benefit is still greater. Thus, you can say with certainty that you're robbing me for my own good.
(Note: if I "benefit" in not having the local bakery burn down, that's cool; I also pay for that benefit when I buy my bread.)