4 ms·

While I wake up at 2am to a crying child, the rich hire Private Nannies. Our society is offensive, yes, but this is an entirely natural consequence of an unfet

While I wake up at 2am to a crying child, the rich hire Private Nannies. Our society is offensive, yes, but this is an entirely natural consequence of an unfettered accumulation of wealth. Private Security, Private School, Private Transit, etc. Why not Private Firefighting?

beerandt 7y ago
It's just as arguable to say that this is an entirely natural consequence of government taking over an industry, and then eventually fails to provide the level of service the market demands. Basic economics- demand of a service exceeds supply, expect newcomers to provide said service at a premium price. The problem I have with people soaking negatively about this is: the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win. Also, firefighting should be left to the properly trained, if not professionals. While I suppose the same argument could be made for nannies, I'd argue child rearing is much more forgiving to novice mistakes.
- txgxyxdkssppg 7y ago
  > entirely natural consequence of government taking over an industry, and then eventually fails to provide the level of service the market demands. This is wrong. The wealthy will always be willing to pay for services that the poor cannot afford. The government is meant to provide consistent service to all regardless of wealth, for services we as a society deem essential to a functional collective. When the rich and powerful lobby for a reduction in services to others, in order to benefit themselves financially, while then purchasing supplementary insurance for said thing undermines the collective good. This is the opposite of what should happen in society, especially after those same people gained the benefit of these things to gain their wealth. > the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win. This is also wrong. Instead of a force to care for all, this results in a reduced public force and an increased private force, where Rich Bob gets saved and Poor Bob has his house burned down. This is fundamentally at odds with the promise of a basic set of services that are equal across a society. Those with means pay a small bit more to help the collective of their countrymen all live more equitably.
  - foogazi 7y ago
    Would Rich Bob’s house have burned down also if he hadn’t hired private firefighters? How is that better?
    - txgxyxdkssppg 7y ago
      If the suggestion is that it's better that at least rich people might be safe... No, it's better that everyone has that.
    - txgxyxdkssppg 7y ago
      I just read your comment history. I'm sorry I gave you any benefit of the doubt.

beerandt 7y ago

It's just as arguable to say that this is an entirely natural consequence of government taking over an industry, and then eventually fails to provide the level of service the market demands. Basic economics- demand of a service exceeds supply, expect newcomers to provide said service at a premium price. The problem I have with people soaking negatively about this is: the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win. Also, firefighting should be left to the properly trained, if not professionals. While I suppose the same argument could be made for nannies, I'd argue child rearing is much more forgiving to novice mistakes.

txgxyxdkssppg 7y ago
> entirely natural consequence of government taking over an industry, and then eventually fails to provide the level of service the market demands. This is wrong. The wealthy will always be willing to pay for services that the poor cannot afford. The government is meant to provide consistent service to all regardless of wealth, for services we as a society deem essential to a functional collective. When the rich and powerful lobby for a reduction in services to others, in order to benefit themselves financially, while then purchasing supplementary insurance for said thing undermines the collective good. This is the opposite of what should happen in society, especially after those same people gained the benefit of these things to gain their wealth. > the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win. This is also wrong. Instead of a force to care for all, this results in a reduced public force and an increased private force, where Rich Bob gets saved and Poor Bob has his house burned down. This is fundamentally at odds with the promise of a basic set of services that are equal across a society. Those with means pay a small bit more to help the collective of their countrymen all live more equitably.
- foogazi 7y ago
  Would Rich Bob’s house have burned down also if he hadn’t hired private firefighters? How is that better?
  - txgxyxdkssppg 7y ago
    If the suggestion is that it's better that at least rich people might be safe... No, it's better that everyone has that.
  - txgxyxdkssppg 7y ago
    I just read your comment history. I'm sorry I gave you any benefit of the doubt.