4 ms·

If we start from the premise ‘we have a government corruption problem’, how does giving said government more power and responsibility fix that? It’s like sayin

If we start from the premise ‘we have a government corruption problem’, how does giving said government more power and responsibility fix that? It’s like saying my car is too slow, let me add 500lbs of weight.

wongarsu 6y ago
It removes a large part of the incentive for corruption (since no one directly receives the profits from towing), and allows for better oversight and much tighter rules.
- optimiz3 6y ago
  Could go really wrong though - civil asset forfeiture comes to mind in parts of the US as a relevant analogue.
  - aljg 6y ago
    Civil asset forfeiture is another great example (analogous to these towing companies) of how a profit motive should not be associated with critical societal services. When there is a large incentive to steal or defraud (whether police or tow trucks) it's likely to happen. This comment just further supports that there should not be such a profit motive.
    - pas 6y ago
      It could be price controlled in case the police calls them.
smnrchrds 6y ago
How the tow truck industry is now, firefighting used to be before it was turned into a public service. I have a billion orders of magnitude more faith in firefighters than in tow truck companies. Why should we not do the same process to tow trucks? > Firefighting used to be a private for-profit industry. In the 1800’s, the early days of urbanization, in cities like New York and Baltimore, there were private “clubs” or “gangs” who were in charge of putting out fires. The infamous Boss Tweed started his illustrious political career at a volunteer fire company. The way it functioned was the first club at the scene got money from the insurance company. So, they had an incentive to get there fast. They also had an incentive to sabotage competition. They also often ended up getting in fights over territory and many times buildings would burn down before the issue was resolved. They were glorified looters. It was corrupt, bloated and expensive https://www.huffpost.com/entry/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_247936 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_2...
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  One of the richest men in rome built a large part of his fortune through firefighting. He would send a slave brigade to any building on fire and offer to buy the property from the owner, refusing to put the fire out unless they sold it to him for cheap.
  - hangsi 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_to_power_and_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_t...
  - Kalium 6y ago
    If memory serves, firefighting technology at the time often consisted of tearing down the building to prevent the conflagration spreading. Saving the building was generally not considered an option, and the way Roman society accounted for value was that such that the building was valuable but the land wasn't. I'm not sure if Rome of the time actually had the ability to field what we would think of as useful firefighters.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

wongarsu 6y ago

It removes a large part of the incentive for corruption (since no one directly receives the profits from towing), and allows for better oversight and much tighter rules.

optimiz3 6y ago
Could go really wrong though - civil asset forfeiture comes to mind in parts of the US as a relevant analogue.
- aljg 6y ago
  Civil asset forfeiture is another great example (analogous to these towing companies) of how a profit motive should not be associated with critical societal services. When there is a large incentive to steal or defraud (whether police or tow trucks) it's likely to happen. This comment just further supports that there should not be such a profit motive.
  - pas 6y ago
    It could be price controlled in case the police calls them.

smnrchrds 6y ago

How the tow truck industry is now, firefighting used to be before it was turned into a public service. I have a billion orders of magnitude more faith in firefighters than in tow truck companies. Why should we not do the same process to tow trucks? > Firefighting used to be a private for-profit industry. In the 1800’s, the early days of urbanization, in cities like New York and Baltimore, there were private “clubs” or “gangs” who were in charge of putting out fires. The infamous Boss Tweed started his illustrious political career at a volunteer fire company. The way it functioned was the first club at the scene got money from the insurance company. So, they had an incentive to get there fast. They also had an incentive to sabotage competition. They also often ended up getting in fights over territory and many times buildings would burn down before the issue was resolved. They were glorified looters. It was corrupt, bloated and expensive https://www.huffpost.com/entry/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_247936 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_2...

thatguy0900 6y ago
One of the richest men in rome built a large part of his fortune through firefighting. He would send a slave brigade to any building on fire and offer to buy the property from the owner, refusing to put the fire out unless they sold it to him for cheap.
- hangsi 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_to_power_and_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_t...
- Kalium 6y ago
  If memory serves, firefighting technology at the time often consisted of tearing down the building to prevent the conflagration spreading. Saving the building was generally not considered an option, and the way Roman society accounted for value was that such that the building was valuable but the land wasn't. I'm not sure if Rome of the time actually had the ability to field what we would think of as useful firefighters.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]