Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevendhansen | Hacker News Reader

The only alternatives to privatization I can see are:

1) force the population to collectively pay for these services or 2) force specific individuals to provide these services for free

Option 1 is morally questionable and option 2 is a type of slavery, so it seems privatization isnt quite as bad as the alternatives. At least with a privatized service those who wish to opt out, can.

View on HN

Wait, why is it morally questionable that a society comes together to, uh, pool resources and do social things?

We are a social species. It makes sense that a social species pools resources together for the good of their collective whole.

Remind me, how is the collection of taxes to pay for services in the public interest 'morally questionable'? The fire department in particular is such an obvious case because a fire affecting one property can easily spread to the next -- and so on. Is that something you want to happen because the property owner of the first house couldn't afford the fire department? That's morally questionable.

Moreover, given a choice, a lot of people wouldn't pay ahead of time for a private fire service, leading to the kind of bankruptcy situations the article is describing. Some localities solve this problem by levying a property tax and using it to maintain public emergency services, so that anyone who would benefit from their presence in a catastrophe has already paid for the service.

This whole article just discusses the consequences of not wanting to pay taxes on anything. It perfectly described a libertarian paradise of private, for-hire, emergency services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com