this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
673 points (98.1% liked)

InsanePeopleFacebook

2628 readers
6 users here now

Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
673
Sovcit is sooooo close.. (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
209 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yes. You need to have at least twice as many firestations to have a choice, if you want to choose between fire services, though.

You're gonna sit there on your phone trying to decide which fire service to use while your house is literally burning down?

What about people who rent? It's not their own private property, are they supposed to pay for the whole building being saved? Does it get put on the landlord? He never consented to having his building saved, his tenants just called the fire station when a fire started. Are the tenants supposed to contact their landlord first so that he can properly consent to having a fire station save his property?

I don't see a problem with having twice as many firestations, as in two parallel services. They don't have only one landline at the firestation after all. They have HA in any mass service system.

Well other than now having to pay for double the amount of infrastructure, you now also probably have people who own and profit off the stations, which introduces every normal market pressure, positive and corrupting.

Notice how it requires no coercion

"Pay our massive fee or your house burns down" certainly sounds coercive. You've also not established anything to guarantee that a fire station doesn't develop a monopoly.

See my solution.

If your solution to serious and urgent emergencies like "Oh my god, my house is on fire" or "Oh my god, I'm having a heart attack" is several paragraphs long, you've not actually developed a solution, just a hypothetical which shows painfully obviously why we stopped running society like this millenia ago.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You’re gonna sit there on your phone trying to decide which fire service to use while your house is literally burning down?

Why "trying to decide"? One may have some kind of subscription etc. Also finding one quickly, like with taxi and food delivery services, is a demand to be filled. Markets and such.

What about people who rent? It’s not their own private property, are they supposed to pay for the whole building being saved? Does it get put on the landlord? He never consented to having his building saved, his tenants just called the fire station when a fire started. Are the tenants supposed to contact their landlord first so that he can properly consent to having a fire station save his property?

It seems you haven't read the paragraph about separation.

Well other than now having to pay for double the amount of infrastructure, you now also probably have people who own and profit off the stations, which introduces every normal market pressure, positive and corrupting.

You'll pay less, that's for sure, ask anyone who've worked with state services and big organizations. At their job, I mean. I have.

“Pay our massive fee or your house burns down” certainly sounds coercive. You’ve also not established anything to guarantee that a fire station doesn’t develop a monopoly.

It seems you haven't read the paragraph about separation.

If your solution to serious and urgent emergencies like “Oh my god, my house is on fire” or “Oh my god, I’m having a heart attack” is several paragraphs long, you’ve not actually developed a solution, just a hypothetical which shows painfully obviously why we stopped running society like this millenia ago.

It seems you haven't read the paragraph about separation. Which is one (1) paragraph, not several. Also no, it doesn't show anything, because you haven't read it and can't make such claims.

The paragraph about separation:

This all is unimportant, though, since it ignores the fact that something like a state fire service, only one separate from police, military and others and with administration formed separately from them is still allowable for ancap. Where membership would be like citizenship in our world, and a member gets the service on usual conditions (but pays something like taxes), while a non-member will pay a lot that one time. It’s similar to state healthcare being free for citizens, but not for foreign nationals in some countries.

Now what I don't understand is why you all refuse to read before commenting.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Why "trying to decide"? One may have some kind of subscription etc. Also finding one quickly, like with taxi and food delivery services, is a demand to be filled. Markets and such.

So you want every person to have to pay for a fire subscription? And if they don't have one their house burns down or they get extorted?

You'll pay less, that's for sure, ask anyone who've worked with state services and big organizations. At their job, I mean. I have.

You certainly may have interacted with government during your career, but hearing this is all I needed to hear. There's nothing objectively different between Government and Private products, sure the private product may be cheaper sometimes, but there's also plenty of ways the private service could be more expensive, that's why every business, including the one I used to run, has conversations about cost vs. benefit of private vs. public for certain services.

It seems you haven't read the paragraph about separation. Which is one (1) paragraph, not several. Also no, it doesn't show anything, because you haven't read it and can't make such claims.

I have read it, I just didn't mention it because not only was it irrelevant, it was also wildly incorrect, government services can compete with eachother, and private companies can have a monopoly even without government intervention.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago

So you want every person to have to pay for a fire subscription? And if they don’t have one their house burns down or they get extorted?

That's what you have now, only it's provided by the state. Well, if you don't have one, you are either an illegal alien or have it free or prosecuted for not paying taxes.

There’s nothing objectively different between Government and Private products, sure the private product may be cheaper sometimes, but there’s also plenty of ways the private service could be more expensive, that’s why every business, including the one I used to run, has conversations about cost vs. benefit of private vs. public for certain services.

I agree, it's mostly about size and organization, not about ownership.

because not only was it irrelevant, it was also wildly incorrect, government services can compete with eachother, and private companies can have a monopoly even without government intervention.

Well, I'm looking at it and I see it as relevant. Yes, they can, but it's not necessary for them to be part of the same structure. Yes, they can, but they may be organizations like Mozilla with the supposed goal of delivering the service, not profit. So just like with state services, but separated where no monolithic organization is really required. Also I haven't said what you are arguing with, so it can't be wildly incorrect if I haven't said it, obviously.