Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomrod | Hacker News Reader

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

Fire fighting in Rome had a similar premise.

I think wikipedia got the details wrong there. Crassus didn't offer to buy the burning buildings, he offered to put fires out. At least, that's how I understood it years ago and that's what Wiki's own source shows-- http://www.trivia-library.com/b/richest-people-in-history-ma... .

edit: Actually, Plutarch wrote that Crassus did buy the burning buildings.

That's interesting - I definitely have heard it taught the way Wikipedia has it. But I suppose some website here or there doesn't really count as much of a source when we're talking of events so far in the past. Maybe someone can provide a primary source or two?

Hmm, I dug further. The story probably comes from Plutarch (Lives), "[Crassus] would buy houses that were afire, and houses which adjoined those that were afire, and these their owners would let go at a trifling price owing to their fear and uncertainty"[1].

Plutarch was closer to Crassus than I am so I guess I can't argue.

[1] https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/...

Free market in action.

Doesn’t mean the free market doesn’t work. Asking people to pay before putting out the fire could be seen as a pay per use model. While a government run service funded by tax dollars could be seen as a subscription service that price discriminates on income tax rates.

In both cases it’s the market at play.

Free market requires strong property rights, as private property is a legal fiction which otherwise does not exist enough to sustain a market.

This is instead a dysfunctional government approaching anarcho-individualism.

The privately owned fire brigades in NYC 100 years ago weren't much better. The free market at work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zoXk1vnmcg

The real Bowery Boys would sometimes sabotage other companies' insured buildings by setting the fires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowery_Boys

Setting fires on other peoples' property is not "the free market at work".

But the rest of it was. The part in the first half of my message and the linked video is entirely free-market.

Also, please do the work to expound on your claim.

> do the work to expound on your claim

A free market system requires protection of property rights. Arson violates property rights, and so is not free market.

What type of market is it when there is no regulation to protect rights, whether property, natural, or civil?

Anarchy is one. Communism is the other, as you have no property rights.

These are political systems, not economic systems.

When I hear people describe a free market, the respect for property rights is sacrosanct yet many also push back on regulation. This confuses me. Regulation typically seeks to ensure rights are respected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com