How would the free market handle forest fires?

[phonon]

Unlike hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, forest fires are a type of natural disaster that humans can have at least some effect upon and sometimes they can stop them from advancing and eventually put them out. I've never heard of anyone doing this except for some government agency.

Instead of forcing people to pay into an organization that would attempt to put out forest fires that threaten people and their homes, what kind of private, consensual organization could take its place?

How would that organization make a profit? What if it failed to put out the fires? What if some people's homes were saved while others were not as is currently the case?

Would enough people be interested in paying into the company/organization to make it work? What if there aren't?

[freeAgent]

Good question

[SnuggleyJeff]

This could be paid for by insurance companies.

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.  

[alaric89]

I have lived in areas with a lot of grass fires. On areas with lots of public land there were homes lost and all that jazz. In areas with a lot of private lands, the folks usually did controlled burnings or plowed the grass under on safety borders or both. I recon land management is so much better when the properties are all owned that forest fire problems are, at the very least, reduced drastically.

[One two three]

Unlike hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, forest fires are a type of natural disaster that humans can have at least some effect upon and sometimes they can stop them from advancing and eventually put them out. I've never heard of anyone doing this except for some government agency.

Instead of forcing people to pay into an organization that would attempt to put out forest fires that threaten people and their homes, what kind of private, consensual organization could take its place?

How would that organization make a profit? What if it failed to put out the fires? What if some people's homes were saved while others were not as is currently the case?

Would enough people be interested in paying into the company/organization to make it work? What if there aren't?

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.

[SnuggleyJeff]

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.

[dalebert]

Forest fires are an important part of the natural processes. People care about them more because people are living in those areas more and more. People who live in high-risk areas should bear the cost of living in those areas. It's true of beach-front properties as well. Most insurance companies don't cover flood damage. Stossel did a report on this. He's had his expensive beach-front home replaced by government along with a lot of other rich people. If governments didn't take up the slack, insurance companies might charge rather high premiums and then they'd decide whether to absorb the damage and simply rebuild or spend money to stop the forest fires. If people had to bear the risk/cost themselves, they might either not live inside the forest or they'd take extra precautions during construction and so forth.

[jerry]

A free market would handle forest fires just like it would handle any other service.

The buyers and sellers would negotiate an acceptable price.

[Bill Brasky]

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

[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.

[Ylisium]

Forest fires are an important part of the natural processes. People care about them more because people are living in those areas more and more. People who live in high-risk areas should bear the cost of living in those areas. It's true of beach-front properties as well. Most insurance companies don't cover flood damage. Stossel did a report on this. He's had his expensive beach-front home replaced by government along with a lot of other rich people. If governments didn't take up the slack, insurance companies might charge rather high premiums and then they'd decide whether to absorb the damage and simply rebuild or spend money to stop the forest fires. If people had to bear the risk/cost themselves, they might either not live inside the forest or they'd take extra precautions during construction and so forth.

I will only add that forest fires today are usually only so bad because the government spends so much energy in preventing forest fires, poorly "managing" forests and working against nature. So, instead of a fire that may burn itself out rather quickly, you have decades worth of undergrowth that cause the mega fires we see today.

My answer is this: If the free market managed the forests, there would be no need to fight these fires on the large scale we see today.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Forest fires are uncontrolled because "no one" (the state) owns them.  People who own portions of forest would have fire insurance/service for them.

[Bill Brasky]

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.

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.  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.

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.

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 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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

[alaric89]

These "what if?" concepts are a waste of time. Private owners who care and have the freedom to fix things as they feel would work are better then bureaucratic and collective solutions every time it has been tested. How would it happen? who knows.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Licinius Crassius was probably the richest man in human history, and he made his fortune fighting fires in ancient Rome. He had the only fire brigade in the city, and whenever a fire started in one of the wooden buildings, his slaves would run to it, and negotiate the price of fighting the fire with the owner as the structure burned.

He was a bit of a dick.