3 ms·
I'm with you on the grass (there're movements to use water-saving native American foliage instead of grass, which is suited to a wet England-like climate), and
by psranga 17y ago
I'm with you on the grass (there're movements to use water-saving native American foliage instead of grass, which is suited to a wet England-like climate), and MAYBE with you on the streetlights if they intelligently do it so that pedestrian safety is not impaired.
But not firefighters (but they only cut 3 fighters, so it's probably going to be OK). Fire insurance premiums assume the presence of a firefighters. W/o a good firefighting force, a fire that burns down one house will probably end up burning down 100.
You watched a house burn down but did you notice that none of the others burned down?
- fexl 17y ago"Fire insurance premiums assume the presence of firefighters." Excellent point. I highly encourage any insurers in that area to hire some firefighters to reduce their liability.
- fnid2 17y agoFor some number of home owners n it will be more economical for them to all chip in and buy a fireman or two than to pay the additional premiums that result from the cut. Capitalism can work here. Taxes don't need to buy firemen.
- fexl 17y agoYou're getting close to the truth of our own situation up here in the mountains. We have a volunteer fire station down the road several miles. However, our fire rating was still fairly high because fire trucks would have to make many trips back and forth to grab water and come all the way back up the mountain. So the property owners' association purchased a big water tank on top of the mountain. Now the fire trucks can refill locally without making long trips back down to the lake to refill. So that helped a good bit. Also, all of the roads up here are privately owned and maintained by our property owners association, and our annual dues have not increased in 9 years.
- cia_plant 17y agoA privately funded fire service would only put out fires in those buildings or neighborhoods which had paid the fire fee. Poor areas, where the residents could not easily afford the fire fee, would be at risk of burning down. Capitalism is not a reasonable way to provide firefighting services.
- psranga 17y agoSince you're the one advocating a system different from the status quo, the burden is on you to provide a serious analysis instead of a glib hypothesis. To use an Internet/cellphone analogy, sometimes is cheaper for the provider to just provide an "unlimited" plan instead of tracking usage. I'm almost certain the current system of universal firefighting coverage evolved from a previous system of privately purchased firefighters. In other words, I strongly suspect that the 'n' value here is "whole city".
- fexl 17y agoNo problem, I'm completely cool with any business plan that does not include clauses such as "And in this case, we take all your stuff and lock you in a cage."