You have valid concerns. However my point was the service itself. Why would a private fire department buy a new truck? Who is evaluating if they have the manpower to offer a good enough service? Why would they invest in training? What stops them from selling half of their fleet after a few years, without anybody noticing? The worse that will happen is that there will be an house burning, they will go on site, try to extinguish, fail for some reason, and then say to the owner "there is nothing else we could do, sorry". How does the owner know he got the service he paid for?
The US probably have the largest and less fuel-efficient car fleet in the developed world. It also has the lowest gas taxes in the developed world. You think it's a coincidence?
I think the market could decide but that it would not be quick enough if we really want to change things in a timely fashion.
The EV craze wouldn't exist without subsidies, regulations, and gas taxes. It's not enough. It's a market failure. Too much pollution is being produced because not enough people care. And expecting more people to care is hopeless. The only way enough people will care enough is if the cost of pollution is passed to the polluter. There are two ways to do that: taxes, or cap and trade. In both case, so-called "free-market" supporters won't like it.
Why is it not efficient? As long as they don't have to wear much equipment, nor spend much of the chemicals, nor risk lives and limb, the costs of such a move are negligible.
It's inefficient because they are not available in case there is a fire somewhere else, plus they are not doing anything useful, or at least a lot less useful than fighting a fire, which they could be doing.
"Natural monopoly" is a myth created by statists already in government to justify their control of our lives.
Good one. First time I hear it. Good laugh. Of course there are natural monopolies. For a more neutral article, Wikipedia is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Who said, they must limit themselves to one town? They don't — not any more than KFC does. On the contrary, the current situation, where each little town has its own department is inefficient. Multiple such companies could open shop in multiple places — competing with each other across town- and state-borders.
I'd open one in every town. Of course I wouldn't have any firemen or trucks. I would just collect the money and not answer any calls. Those who get their house burnt would get a monthly refund, since I failed to provide them with service for the month. Of course, every private fire departement would need it's own aqueduc and private fire hydrant network, right?
It is not efficient at all to move the whole fire department over to a house just to watch it burn and make sure it doesn't spread to neighbors.
If that's true, then why would they do it if they were privatized? How do you define "efficient"?
Because private companies are not always efficient. In this case, the best thing to do is to force everyone to pay for the fire departement, so that they don't let any house burn.
The pollution argument is weak since we've all been forced to pay more for pollution controls on newer vehicles, had to give up our light bulbs, etc. It's never enough.
Of course it's not enough. It's a drop in the ocean.
I'm on my second hybrid vehicle and there are a number of EVs in my town
And there would be a lot more if people were forced to pay the real price associated with pollution from their gas vehicule.
The reason it pollutes is there is no bill for the pollution... If we have, for whatever reason, decided that carbon is pollution, then tax it and be done with it.
While I totally agree with this solution, most proponents of the "free market" would say that this is central planing and socialism.
Gas tax might forces someone to take the bus or walk. Sales tax might forces someone to buy oatmeal instead of eating in a restaurant. Paying for roads IS forcing people to pay for thing they might not have purchased.
If you're going to use punitive taxation to force the market to "decide" on something, that's not democracy
Yes it is. Income tax, sales tax, gas tax are all punitive taxes voted democratically. I would also argue that forcing pollution to others is no better than forcing taxes.
On the other hand, privatized fire departments actually work
No they don't. It's a rarely used service which is a lot more efficient if everyone is paying for it. It is not efficient at all to move the whole fire department over to a house just to watch it burn and make sure it doesn't spread to neighbors. It's also a natural monopoly. It wouldn't be efficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town. It's much better to have a larger one with better equipment. And even then, it's better when nearby towns collaborate in the event of a large fire. Just because they exists doesn't mean they work or are efficient.
The big problem with anarcho-capitalism, IMHO, is the free rider problem [wikipedia.org]. If 90% of the people make their voluntary contributions to the national defense, and 10% don't, it is not possible for the defense to allow attacks on the 10%. National defense is either effective for everyone or effective for nobody.
The exact same logic applies to power generation. Everyone suffers from pollution coming from fossil fuel power plants. Those getting cheap electricity from coal are free riding on those paying more for renewable. It also applies at the national level. The US/Canada/Australia are currently free riding on the rest of the world by emitting way more greenhouse gases per capita than the world average.
And why would you choose renewable if they are more expensive than fossil fuels? You don't. That's why we need central planing to force stuff such as environment protection. There are various ways to achieve this however. One way is to tax fossil fuels, and then let "the market" decide which renewable is best.
I agree. We should also let the market decide if the military and the police are worth paying for. Instead of forcing taxes to the home owners, every citizen should pay whatever they think military and police are worth. What could possibly go wrong?
Of course the recession had a major impact. But recessions happen. Greece should have planned for it. Instead, their budget deficit was 5-7% of GDP in the years before the recession.
45 % of Greek pensioners live below the eu poverty line. Your asking about if there is really a humanitarian crisis?
Being below the povrety line in Greece is still richer than being middle class in many countries. Anyway that measurement doesn't mean much, since it's relative to the country's wealth.
2. Forcing the country to either default or accept further austerity is causing a humanitarian crisis in the country
They should have thinked twice before borrowing in the first place.
5. A lot of the money that was 'loaned' to Greece, exited the country immediately in the form of purchases of German/French goods even military equipment
Which Greece wasn't forced to buy. Let's face it. 99% of today's Greece debt comes from loans taken by a democratically elected government since the 80's.
2. Forcing the country to either default or accept further austerity is causing a humanitarian crisis in the country.
Last time I checked Greece was still richer than many northern neighbors from Eastern Europe. A lot richer than southern neighbors from Africa. Why would there be a humanitarian crisis in Greece but not in poorer countries?
Do they have any evidence that the active molecule sticks to the container or is more present in the top layer? I mean, anymore than the water? Of course they don't.
Look up how they do the "dilutions", the concentration of the original ingredients asymptotes. It does not go to zero.
Yes it does. That's the whole point of the criticism. It is so diluted that the probability of having a single molecule is close to 0. Dilution doesn't split atoms or molecules. Either you have one or you don't.
Apple is the only company successful with this business model. Blackberry failed, Nokia failed (with symbian, before Microsoft), Samsung failed (Bada), Palm failed. That Microsoft failed isn't surprising at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You have valid concerns. However my point was the service itself. Why would a private fire department buy a new truck? Who is evaluating if they have the manpower to offer a good enough service? Why would they invest in training? What stops them from selling half of their fleet after a few years, without anybody noticing? The worse that will happen is that there will be an house burning, they will go on site, try to extinguish, fail for some reason, and then say to the owner "there is nothing else we could do, sorry". How does the owner know he got the service he paid for?
The US probably have the largest and less fuel-efficient car fleet in the developed world. It also has the lowest gas taxes in the developed world. You think it's a coincidence?
I think the market could decide but that it would not be quick enough if we really want to change things in a timely fashion.
That's why we call it a market failure.
The EV craze wouldn't exist without subsidies, regulations, and gas taxes.
It's not enough. It's a market failure. Too much pollution is being produced because not enough people care. And expecting more people to care is hopeless. The only way enough people will care enough is if the cost of pollution is passed to the polluter. There are two ways to do that: taxes, or cap and trade. In both case, so-called "free-market" supporters won't like it.
The problem is that most people don't care / don't want to know, and yes, are cheap. There wouldn't be that much coal plants today if people cared.
And how much do you save with this system? I'd be surprised if there was any savings, considering it is a lot more complicated to manage.
Why is it not efficient? As long as they don't have to wear much equipment, nor spend much of the chemicals, nor risk lives and limb, the costs of such a move are negligible.
It's inefficient because they are not available in case there is a fire somewhere else, plus they are not doing anything useful, or at least a lot less useful than fighting a fire, which they could be doing.
"Natural monopoly" is a myth created by statists already in government to justify their control of our lives.
Good one. First time I hear it. Good laugh. Of course there are natural monopolies. For a more neutral article, Wikipedia is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Who said, they must limit themselves to one town? They don't — not any more than KFC does. On the contrary, the current situation, where each little town has its own department is inefficient. Multiple such companies could open shop in multiple places — competing with each other across town- and state-borders.
I'd open one in every town. Of course I wouldn't have any firemen or trucks. I would just collect the money and not answer any calls. Those who get their house burnt would get a monthly refund, since I failed to provide them with service for the month.
Of course, every private fire departement would need it's own aqueduc and private fire hydrant network, right?
If that's true, then why would they do it if they were privatized? How do you define "efficient"?
Because private companies are not always efficient. In this case, the best thing to do is to force everyone to pay for the fire departement, so that they don't let any house burn.
For a definition, Wikipedia is your friend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It wouldn't be efficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town. It's much better to have a larger one with better equipment.
If it's inefficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town, then why would there be two if they were privatized?
Because privatization doesn't always result in the most efficient solution.
The pollution argument is weak since we've all been forced to pay more for pollution controls on newer vehicles, had to give up our light bulbs, etc. It's never enough.
Of course it's not enough. It's a drop in the ocean.
I'm on my second hybrid vehicle and there are a number of EVs in my town
And there would be a lot more if people were forced to pay the real price associated with pollution from their gas vehicule.
The reason it pollutes is there is no bill for the pollution... If we have, for whatever reason, decided that carbon is pollution, then tax it and be done with it.
While I totally agree with this solution, most proponents of the "free market" would say that this is central planing and socialism.
Gas tax might forces someone to take the bus or walk. Sales tax might forces someone to buy oatmeal instead of eating in a restaurant. Paying for roads IS forcing people to pay for thing they might not have purchased.
Of course not, but such market doesn't exist.
If you're going to use punitive taxation to force the market to "decide" on something, that's not democracy
Yes it is. Income tax, sales tax, gas tax are all punitive taxes voted democratically.
I would also argue that forcing pollution to others is no better than forcing taxes.
On the other hand, privatized fire departments actually work
No they don't. It's a rarely used service which is a lot more efficient if everyone is paying for it. It is not efficient at all to move the whole fire department over to a house just to watch it burn and make sure it doesn't spread to neighbors.
It's also a natural monopoly. It wouldn't be efficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town. It's much better to have a larger one with better equipment. And even then, it's better when nearby towns collaborate in the event of a large fire.
Just because they exists doesn't mean they work or are efficient.
The big problem with anarcho-capitalism, IMHO, is the free rider problem [wikipedia.org]. If 90% of the people make their voluntary contributions to the national defense, and 10% don't, it is not possible for the defense to allow attacks on the 10%. National defense is either effective for everyone or effective for nobody.
The exact same logic applies to power generation. Everyone suffers from pollution coming from fossil fuel power plants. Those getting cheap electricity from coal are free riding on those paying more for renewable. It also applies at the national level. The US/Canada/Australia are currently free riding on the rest of the world by emitting way more greenhouse gases per capita than the world average.
The market is NOT the best solution for energy. The market will always produce too much energy from polluting sources.
And why would you choose renewable if they are more expensive than fossil fuels? You don't. That's why we need central planing to force stuff such as environment protection. There are various ways to achieve this however. One way is to tax fossil fuels, and then let "the market" decide which renewable is best.
I agree. We should also let the market decide if the military and the police are worth paying for. Instead of forcing taxes to the home owners, every citizen should pay whatever they think military and police are worth. What could possibly go wrong?
Because that would produce too much pollution, as the cost of pollution (including global warming) isn't included in your cost.
Of course the recession had a major impact. But recessions happen. Greece should have planned for it. Instead, their budget deficit was 5-7% of GDP in the years before the recession.
45 % of Greek pensioners live below the eu poverty line. Your asking about if there is really a humanitarian crisis?
Being below the povrety line in Greece is still richer than being middle class in many countries. Anyway that measurement doesn't mean much, since it's relative to the country's wealth.
2. Forcing the country to either default or accept further austerity is causing a humanitarian crisis in the country
They should have thinked twice before borrowing in the first place.
5. A lot of the money that was 'loaned' to Greece, exited the country immediately in the form of purchases of German/French goods even military equipment
Which Greece wasn't forced to buy. Let's face it. 99% of today's Greece debt comes from loans taken by a democratically elected government since the 80's.
2. Forcing the country to either default or accept further austerity is causing a humanitarian crisis in the country.
Last time I checked Greece was still richer than many northern neighbors from Eastern Europe. A lot richer than southern neighbors from Africa. Why would there be a humanitarian crisis in Greece but not in poorer countries?
From TFA:
the symmetrical two gigabit service
Do they have any evidence that the active molecule sticks to the container or is more present in the top layer? I mean, anymore than the water? Of course they don't.
Look up how they do the "dilutions", the concentration of the original ingredients asymptotes. It does not go to zero.
Yes it does. That's the whole point of the criticism. It is so diluted that the probability of having a single molecule is close to 0. Dilution doesn't split atoms or molecules. Either you have one or you don't.
Apple is the only company successful with this business model. Blackberry failed, Nokia failed (with symbian, before Microsoft), Samsung failed (Bada), Palm failed. That Microsoft failed isn't surprising at all.
Good to know that iOS9 will finally enter the 3rd millenial.
Not half of the OS market. Half of the mobile OS market. Globally, it has around 15% of the smartphone market share.