How would the free market handle forest fires?

[SeanD]

Could be but if he were a truly hardcore motherfucker he would have started the fires THEN negotiated the cost of fighting that bitch.

[Turd Ferguson]

For any kind of libertarian's wet dream type of society to succeed, a shift in thinking has to occur first. People would need to forget the notion that when a fire occurs, someone would be there to put it out and then proceed from there.

What would you do then? Well, you might start by thinking of different ways to prevent fires from happening in the first place such as ideas like alaric's fireproof houses scheme and if they STILL happened, how you would go about putting them out after they started. One possibility would be for someone to develop a system that you would install in the house that would use temperature and visual sensors in every room that would detect a fire and deploy some sort of fire retardant substance to the room that had its sensors set off. Sounds expensive, but when you consider how much money you spend over the years to line some insurnace company guys pockets with cash and like most people, never use that insurance in your life, its not such a big expense.

We send people to outer space and have cell phones that can perform more tasks than a whole room IBM computer could do just 40 years ago for fucksake, surely someone has the ingenuity to develop an in home system to perform the simple task of putting out a fire.


Forest fires? Thats a whole different story. Take your chances I guess, or dont build a house in an area that is prone to forest fires and if you still decide to do so, do it going into the project with the very real possibility that you could lose everything. Basically, gambling.

[SnuggleyJeff]

There is no incentive for insurance companies to fight fires.  They've already calculated the risk of total loss. 

If the cost of potential claims exceeded the cost of fighting the fire, that would be an incentive.

Thats an oversimplification of a complex problem.

That's the bottom line, not a detailed explaination of the problem.

In any given community, there is an unknown variable.  That variable is the mish-mosh of various companies all being on the hook for various sums.  Each of these insurance corps would have to contribute a percentage-based sum proportionate to what they aim to protect.

Yes.  This sounds very sensible.

Some companies may not want to comply, and some homeowners may not wish to purchase any greater coverage, but would still benefit from the necessity of controlling the fire.

Companies that don't want to comply are just one more variable in the equation that determines wether or not the fire is fought.    

Preventative services are massive endeavors, requiring many thousands of employees, and a fuck-ton of specialized equipment that must be purchased before the event.  Training must be completed, supplies maintained, and a well organized supply chain with contingencies for every corner of the coverage area planned ahead.  This is where shit gets local.
  
Because of the rapid response time required, they'd be dotted all over the map, not in a centralized manner, but jurisdictions.  There, you would observe a redundancy of positions and equipment, and personnel.  This is where shit gets expensive.

Are you suggesting that existing firefighters and firefighting equipment would cease to exist if we transitioned to a free market economy?   Yes it's expensive.  Sometimes it would be cost effective to fight the fire, sometimes not.

This is where I and most Libertopians part ways, because they inevitably hatch a hairball scheme and say "Let the insurance comps handle all our problems".  And I challenge them to explain how that would work IRL, and they can't do it.

I agree with you.  In fact, I part ways with any kind of Utopian.  You are correct in saying that insurance companies will not handle all of our problems, but they will handle some of them.  

I don't have a problem with the theory of government, but I have a problem with its real-world mismanagement and ineffective implementation.  There is no reason why our National Guards should not have been better equipped to handle this sort of catastrophe, thats one of their potential uses.  Same with West Virginia, where the power's all fucked up and people are running out of food, and roasting their nuts off in a heatwave.  An efficient National Guard should've been prepared to deploy immediately, and lend support to their efforts.  If that was a real "attack", we'd all be fucked by the time they came to rescue.

This is where you and I part ways.  There is a reason why the National Guard does not do a better job than it does, and here it is:

It is a government entity.

The profitable energy companies in the WV area, still struggling five days later to restore power, demonstrates perfectly how a private company responds...  and the WV situation isn't even dangerous.

These are not free market companies.  They are profitable because they have government granted monopolies.

There is nothing to suggest a better alternative is to be found in replacing specialized services in a for-profit situation would be more efficient, or for that matter, cheaper.  Many of those localized services have volunteer participants, something an insurance company can NOT rely on.

Here is the second sentence of my original response:

Another thing to consider is that in a voluntary society, there would be a much greater tendency to pull together and get the job done.

At the end of the story, insurance companies would be hemorrhaging money, and the only solution would be to raise rates, making it unobtainable for more people, like medical coverage.

Are you saying that insurance companies could not exist without government?  

I didn't qualify in my orginal response that, not all forest fires need to be fought, but your response seems to assume that I thought that that was the case.

[Turd Ferguson]

The thing I dislike about the whole concept of insurance, as it is currently run anyway, is the fact that it is modeled after the idea that the cautious, responsible people that participate in it get punished and the irresponsible get rewarded.

[Cognitive Dissident]

The thing I dislike about the whole concept of insurance, as it is currently run anyway, is the fact that it is modeled after the idea that the cautious, responsible people that participate in it get punished and the irresponsible get rewarded.

My insurance gives me a discount for not making claims.   Most also takes into account personal factors such as driving record, student grades, etc.  States sometimes limit what they can do, but it seems they really try to focus the premiums in the same area as their costs.  This is one reason why pre-existing conditions are an issue, smoking, etc.  I'm somewhat convinced that 90% of the unfairness in insurance is based on their having to deal with governments telling them how to run their business.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

The thing I dislike about the whole concept of insurance, as it is currently run anyway, is the fact that it is modeled after the idea that the cautious, responsible people that participate in it get punished and the irresponsible get rewarded.

My insurance gives me a discount for not making claims.   Most also takes into account personal factors such as driving record, student grades, etc.  States sometimes limit what they can do, but it seems they really try to focus the premiums in the same area as their costs.  This is one reason why pre-existing conditions are an issue, smoking, etc.  I'm somewhat convinced that 90% of the unfairness in insurance is based on their having to deal with governments telling them how to run their business.

I always thought that caveat emptor should apply to insurance companies. If they're the ones taking the risk, they have the incentive to find out for themselves if the person they're insuring is healthy. Fuck their "preexisting condition" clauses. If they take money, and don't provide a service afterwards they're guilty of fraud.

[Defendant]

There is no incentive for insurance companies to fight fires.  They've already calculated the risk of total loss. 

If the cost of potential claims exceeded the cost of fighting the fire, that would be an incentive.

Thats an oversimplification of a complex problem.

That's the bottom line, not a detailed explaination of the problem.

In any given community, there is an unknown variable.  That variable is the mish-mosh of various companies all being on the hook for various sums.  Each of these insurance corps would have to contribute a percentage-based sum proportionate to what they aim to protect.

Yes.  This sounds very sensible.

Some companies may not want to comply, and some homeowners may not wish to purchase any greater coverage, but would still benefit from the necessity of controlling the fire.

 
Companies that don't want to comply are just one more variable in the equation that determines wether or not the fire is fought.    

Preventative services are massive endeavors, requiring many thousands of employees, and a fuck-ton of specialized equipment that must be purchased before the event.  Training must be completed, supplies maintained, and a well organized supply chain with contingencies for every corner of the coverage area planned ahead.  This is where shit gets local.
  
Because of the rapid response time required, they'd be dotted all over the map, not in a centralized manner, but jurisdictions.  There, you would observe a redundancy of positions and equipment, and personnel.  This is where shit gets expensive.

Are you suggesting that existing firefighters and firefighting equipment would cease to exist if we transitioned to a free market economy?   Yes it's expensive.  Sometimes it would be cost effective to fight the fire, sometimes not.

This is where I and most Libertopians part ways, because they inevitably hatch a hairball scheme and say "Let the insurance comps handle all our problems".  And I challenge them to explain how that would work IRL, and they can't do it.

I agree with you.  In fact, I part ways with any kind of Utopian.  You are correct in saying that insurance companies will not handle all of our problems, but they will handle some of them.  

I don't have a problem with the theory of government, but I have a problem with its real-world mismanagement and ineffective implementation.  There is no reason why our National Guards should not have been better equipped to handle this sort of catastrophe, thats one of their potential uses.  Same with West Virginia, where the power's all fucked up and people are running out of food, and roasting their nuts off in a heatwave.  An efficient National Guard should've been prepared to deploy immediately, and lend support to their efforts.  If that was a real "attack", we'd all be fucked by the time they came to rescue.

This is where you and I part ways.  There is a reason why the National Guard does not do a better job than it does, and here it is:

It is a government entity.

The profitable energy companies in the WV area, still struggling five days later to restore power, demonstrates perfectly how a private company responds...  and the WV situation isn't even dangerous.

These are not free market companies.  They are profitable because they have government granted monopolies.

There is nothing to suggest a better alternative is to be found in replacing specialized services in a for-profit situation would be more efficient, or for that matter, cheaper.  Many of those localized services have volunteer participants, something an insurance company can NOT rely on.

Here is the second sentence of my original response:

Another thing to consider is that in a voluntary society, there would be a much greater tendency to pull together and get the job done.

At the end of the story, insurance companies would be hemorrhaging money, and the only solution would be to raise rates, making it unobtainable for more people, like medical coverage.

Are you saying that insurance companies could not exist without government?  

I didn't qualify in my orginal response that, not all forest fires need to be fought, but your response seems to assume that I thought that that was the case.

I highlighted the statement that refutes everything else you said. 



Offhand comments- I don't do the stacking text crap... 




Comment #1 - Voluntarism is great.  But for-profit companies can't rely on it.  They can only benefit from it, but cannot project it in their expenditures. 

Comment #2 - No, I don't believe fire companies would cease to exist in the absence of government.  I'm saying it would be enormously expensive to equip them, and staff them, from scratch.  This cost would be passed on to the insurance customer in the form of higher rates. 

Comment #3 - One fact, many volunteer fire services already exist.  My town has one.  So does the adjacent town, and the one after that.  They do NOT get paid. 

Comment #4 - Two fact, 71% of the firefighters in the US are volunteer.  Source.

Comment #5 - Red fact, insurance companies are scum. 

Comment #6 - Blue fact, democrats are more than happy to shove square pegs into round holes.  See the malevolent restructuring of American healthcare if you are incapable of imagining a bad thing getting inexplicably worse.  Insurance companies don't do ANYTHING voluntarily.  They are for-profit organizations, already protected by government. 

--

Look man..  Nobody does expensive shit for free.  If you want to believe in Santa, go ahead.  I live in the real world, where my conjecture is actually feasible.  (or, at least, it was).   I don't waste my time with theoretical nonsense.  Nobody's gonna take the flag down.  That means, this shit is permanent. 

The goal of the exercise is envisioning something that could potentially happen.  Sort of like a worst-case scenario, I exist on a plane of best-case scenario.  In a best-case scenario, people become enlightened, and they move along and become the next responsible generation.  There will always be corrupt assholes, our job is to manage them.   

In the worst case scenario, we all die in a smogged-out nightmare wasteland.  I donno how that transpires, and neither do you.

--

You can talk shit about volunteer this, and volunteer that, but you need to realize, the National Guard is volunteer.  So is the rest of the standing military.  They are probably so offensively zealous because of the standard brainwash argument.  I get that.  Understood.  But they still represent the baseline of concerned young adults who want to thump their chests and protect our shit.  So, lets not shit on them.

The problem is always gonna be the strategists, REMF cocksuckers, golden echelon season-ticket holders who think all this crap is here to exploit for their lofty ambitions.  Professional scumbags who skate betwixt and between the poles of public and private sector. 

There are a bunch of heavy hitters.  Big Insurance is one of them.  They are equally as corrupt as the US government.  If you think the insurance companies would protect your house, you're not seeing things clearly.

I explained that in one sentence, by saying "There is no incentive, they've already calculated total loss."  Thats how they mathematically discover the price of the policy, and how much you should pay monthly, and all that shit.  They'll just write it off.  They've already written it off, the minute they take the policy.   Otherwise, they couldn't keep themselves in business. 

You understand that, right?  How they can't have an "overhang", yes?

In insurance parlance, an overhang is knowing alllll the insured shit will be destroyed, immediately.  That would be an idiots business.  And they're not idiots.

More money is coming in than is going out.  Otherwise, they wouldn't insure it.  Insurance is a gamble.  Its like taking bets.

If they lose 256 houses, they really don't give a fuck, dude.  Its just a little bit.  There is no reason for them to engage in a massive undertaking such as a nationwide co-op of catastrophe fighters.  (which is a much larger concept than just a ready-made national magic firefighting show...)

If there was such a concept potential, they would've enacted it in New Orleans.  Everybody knew that city was on the brink of disaster.  They would've built storm walls, and re-enforced the levees.  But they don't care.  Almost 2,000 died in that shit.  $81 Billion in damage. 

Colorado was a pittance compared to that. 

[SnuggleyJeff]

By Emperor of Wisdom, you mean that you command wisdom to be what you want it to be, right?  And yes, that is a rhetorical question.

[Cognitive Dissident]

The thing I dislike about the whole concept of insurance, as it is currently run anyway, is the fact that it is modeled after the idea that the cautious, responsible people that participate in it get punished and the irresponsible get rewarded.

My insurance gives me a discount for not making claims.   Most also takes into account personal factors such as driving record, student grades, etc.  States sometimes limit what they can do, but it seems they really try to focus the premiums in the same area as their costs.  This is one reason why pre-existing conditions are an issue, smoking, etc.  I'm somewhat convinced that 90% of the unfairness in insurance is based on their having to deal with governments telling them how to run their business.

I always thought that caveat emptor should apply to insurance companies. If they're the ones taking the risk, they have the incentive to find out for themselves if the person they're insuring is healthy. Fuck their "preexisting condition" clauses. If they take money, and don't provide a service afterwards they're guilty of fraud.

Except it's written into the contract, and they tell you, if you have a pre-existing condition, it won't be covered, or will only be covered in certain circumstances.

FWIW, I have a pre-existing condition that's a pretty big deal.  Now, since I opened up the can of worms, my opinion about that is that the insurance company that you were with at the time your body got fucked up should have to eat your pre-existing condition for life, since that's what insurance is.  It's not like they don't own it.  I was insured when mine was diagnosed.  I'm not now.

[analogkid]

Cut down all the forests. Problem solved.

[Turd Ferguson]

Cut down all the forests. Problem solved.

I like that idea. Alot.

 I just dont see what it has to do with of Ken's pre-existing condition.

[John Shaw]

The "Free Market" is just an idea in people's brain mush.

A fire is a very real, palpable, measurable, concrete thing.

People get away from fires.

Other people put them out.

If there is a large fire, or even a small one, people will try to put it out.

None of this is even an issue. There's a world full of people out there who aren't dirty statists who *Live* to put out fires.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Cut down all the forests. Problem solved.

I like that idea. Alot.

 I just dont see what it has to do with of Ken's pre-existing condition.

My pre-existing condition had to do with this:

I always thought that caveat emptor should apply to insurance companies. If they're the ones taking the risk, they have the incentive to find out for themselves if the person they're insuring is healthy. Fuck their "preexisting condition" clauses. If they take money, and don't provide a service afterwards they're guilty of fraud.

Thank you for your concern.

[One two three]

I cannot speak for the entire free market but for me personally, I handle them by living where they don't happen.  I know it sounds crazy but it is one of the benefits of living in an urban area in New Hampshire.

This is just like the benefit to smoking cigarettes.  They keep mosquitoes away.

One of them benefits of living in an urban area (and not next to streams, rivers, lakes or swamps) is it keeps mosquitoes away.  I also don't live in an area known for horrible earthquakes, lots of tornadoes or tons of hurricanes.  Gee, I love how the market works.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

The thing I dislike about the whole concept of insurance, as it is currently run anyway, is the fact that it is modeled after the idea that the cautious, responsible people that participate in it get punished and the irresponsible get rewarded.

My insurance gives me a discount for not making claims.   Most also takes into account personal factors such as driving record, student grades, etc.  States sometimes limit what they can do, but it seems they really try to focus the premiums in the same area as their costs.  This is one reason why pre-existing conditions are an issue, smoking, etc.  I'm somewhat convinced that 90% of the unfairness in insurance is based on their having to deal with governments telling them how to run their business.

I always thought that caveat emptor should apply to insurance companies. If they're the ones taking the risk, they have the incentive to find out for themselves if the person they're insuring is healthy. Fuck their "preexisting condition" clauses. If they take money, and don't provide a service afterwards they're guilty of fraud.

Except it's written into the contract, and they tell you, if you have a pre-existing condition, it won't be covered, or will only be covered in certain circumstances.

FWIW, I have a pre-existing condition that's a pretty big deal.  Now, since I opened up the can of worms, my opinion about that is that the insurance company that you were with at the time your body got fucked up should have to eat your pre-existing condition for life, since that's what insurance is.  It's not like they don't own it.  I was insured when mine was diagnosed.  I'm not now.

If a contract is 40 pages long, and written in legalese, its not a legally binding document in my view, because it was written with the intention of deceiving one of the parties. I have a fucking hard-on for honesty in business, and when I see impropriety, I call it out. There is a lot of bullshit in the insurance industry.