4 ms·

I think I agree, but I don't see that as an indictment on the system or the folks doing supplemental hiring. Plenty of people have home security systems, or if

I think I agree, but I don't see that as an indictment on the system or the folks doing supplemental hiring. Plenty of people have home security systems, or if you're rich/important enough, hire a bodyguard or private security. That doesn't mean the police isn't fit for service, it just means that the police have to care about everyone, and sometimes your personal risk profile is different than the average of everyone. If you own a multi-million dollar house, it's almost better for everyone if you're paying your own money to protect it, and let the public fire fighters spend their resources protecting those who can't afford their own protection.

TheCraiggers 7y ago
But it would be even better for everyone if the well-off person spent those resources on additional public fire fighters. Maybe a new (closer) fire station, better trucks, more full-time fighters to staff it, etc. Work with the local government to help keep it going after an initial cash infusion. That said, I have no idea what the cost difference would be here, and I'm aware there are other potential negatives. I was just pointing out there are more options on the table, ones that would benefit both parties even more.
- noirbot 7y ago
  Potentially, but just because people aren't doing the 100% most altruistic thing all the time doesn't mean they should be shamed for doing something that seems, at worst, neutral to everyone else. "What if rich people gave away all their money to causes I support" is almost always a valid position, but one that doesn't really help advance any discussion of the merits of any other action that's more viable.
  - TheCraiggers 7y ago
    It's not the most altruistic thing. If the problem is that their new expensive house has inadequate firefighter coverage, helping fund a closer one is very much in their interest. Having the locals fund it after you've helped get it off the ground and the charitable write-offs you could probably get aren't either. If they were funding a fire station in a third world country where they have zero business interests, than sure, call it altruism. But I was just trying to show that there are more options, some potentially even better for everybody.
    - david38 7y ago
      I disagree. If my house is in danger, I’m going to protect it, no the whole town. I already pay taxes for the town’s coverage but I cannot support everyone. I’m pretty sure wealthy owners have done the math and know exactly where altruism begins. Now if all my neighbors want to put a lot more money into the pot, then we can talk.
- gambiting 7y ago
  But you could put in/donate millions of dollars into your local fire station, and there is still no guarantee that they will come and save your house when it's on fire, because maybe someone else needed help first so they are all occupied. You could buy another 20 firetrucks and the problem still could happen. Sure, it's a great thing to do for the community, but from a personal point of view, I'd like to have both a functional public service and a guarantee that there are people on standby to help me in a fire(I mean, how is that different than a home alarm, which I am sure many of us not-so-rich people have? When the alarm triggers, the security company sends someone over to have a look before calling the police, so in a way you are already replacing public service with a private one for your own benefit)
- hindsightbias 7y ago
  It would be far, far better if every able-bodied person performed basic fire prevention mitigation on their property. It would be far better for those replacing their roofs to use fire-rate shingles, or for county/city codes to mandate improvements. The well-off can pay someone to do that, and can afford to live in environments where the new normal is >75 mph winds. I doubt any amount of public investment can make it safe for the masses, short of long-term acceptance of blackouts being the new normal.
  - david38 7y ago
    Building codes have already made it so safe for the masses that fire departments often have a tough time justifying their own existence. Everyone is already doing basic mitigation unless they are breaking the law.
logfromblammo 7y ago
The federal appellate has ruled [0] that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone in particular. SCotUS ruled in similar cases [1] [2] that cops just don't have to lift a single finger if it would save your life. That does mean that the police isn't fit for service. You hire a bodyguard and/or private security firm because you do actually need someone working for you whose duty is to protect your person and/or property. Most people with something to protect just buy insurance or a dog or a firearm, but the rich pay more for more active measures, such as monitored home security systems, or full-time on-site guards. It doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that public firefighters likewise do not have a duty to protect your house, specifically, against fires. Hiring private is absolutely an indictment of the inadequacy of the publicly funded protective measures. And once someone has secured a private solution, they have no further interest in fixing or funding the public solution, in the same way that people who send their kids to private schools stop caring about the public schools. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

TheCraiggers 7y ago

But it would be even better for everyone if the well-off person spent those resources on additional public fire fighters. Maybe a new (closer) fire station, better trucks, more full-time fighters to staff it, etc. Work with the local government to help keep it going after an initial cash infusion. That said, I have no idea what the cost difference would be here, and I'm aware there are other potential negatives. I was just pointing out there are more options on the table, ones that would benefit both parties even more.

noirbot 7y ago
Potentially, but just because people aren't doing the 100% most altruistic thing all the time doesn't mean they should be shamed for doing something that seems, at worst, neutral to everyone else. "What if rich people gave away all their money to causes I support" is almost always a valid position, but one that doesn't really help advance any discussion of the merits of any other action that's more viable.
- TheCraiggers 7y ago
  It's not the most altruistic thing. If the problem is that their new expensive house has inadequate firefighter coverage, helping fund a closer one is very much in their interest. Having the locals fund it after you've helped get it off the ground and the charitable write-offs you could probably get aren't either. If they were funding a fire station in a third world country where they have zero business interests, than sure, call it altruism. But I was just trying to show that there are more options, some potentially even better for everybody.
  - david38 7y ago
    I disagree. If my house is in danger, I’m going to protect it, no the whole town. I already pay taxes for the town’s coverage but I cannot support everyone. I’m pretty sure wealthy owners have done the math and know exactly where altruism begins. Now if all my neighbors want to put a lot more money into the pot, then we can talk.
gambiting 7y ago
But you could put in/donate millions of dollars into your local fire station, and there is still no guarantee that they will come and save your house when it's on fire, because maybe someone else needed help first so they are all occupied. You could buy another 20 firetrucks and the problem still could happen. Sure, it's a great thing to do for the community, but from a personal point of view, I'd like to have both a functional public service and a guarantee that there are people on standby to help me in a fire(I mean, how is that different than a home alarm, which I am sure many of us not-so-rich people have? When the alarm triggers, the security company sends someone over to have a look before calling the police, so in a way you are already replacing public service with a private one for your own benefit)
hindsightbias 7y ago
It would be far, far better if every able-bodied person performed basic fire prevention mitigation on their property. It would be far better for those replacing their roofs to use fire-rate shingles, or for county/city codes to mandate improvements. The well-off can pay someone to do that, and can afford to live in environments where the new normal is >75 mph winds. I doubt any amount of public investment can make it safe for the masses, short of long-term acceptance of blackouts being the new normal.
- david38 7y ago
  Building codes have already made it so safe for the masses that fire departments often have a tough time justifying their own existence. Everyone is already doing basic mitigation unless they are breaking the law.

logfromblammo 7y ago

The federal appellate has ruled [0] that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone in particular. SCotUS ruled in similar cases [1] [2] that cops just don't have to lift a single finger if it would save your life. That does mean that the police isn't fit for service. You hire a bodyguard and/or private security firm because you do actually need someone working for you whose duty is to protect your person and/or property. Most people with something to protect just buy insurance or a dog or a firearm, but the rich pay more for more active measures, such as monitored home security systems, or full-time on-site guards. It doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that public firefighters likewise do not have a duty to protect your house, specifically, against fires. Hiring private is absolutely an indictment of the inadequacy of the publicly funded protective measures. And once someone has secured a private solution, they have no further interest in fixing or funding the public solution, in the same way that people who send their kids to private schools stop caring about the public schools. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County