With no taxes, what about firestations and garbage service?

[Hawker]

There is not a free market in pumps because government services have no incentive to be efficient. They are willing to bid inflated prices for them. If a fire service had to sustain without a deficit and with value for all its supporters, bids would be substantially lower and thus the price decreasing.

The free loader problem is not an issue. As long as the fire station is sustaining, nobody is taking a loss. If they voluntarily help houses for free, there is no coercion. Fire services that are charitable will probably use it as a marketing tactic anyways.

Wrong.  Governments are a tiny percentage of the pump market.

[1714839161]

1714839161

[1714839161]

1714839161

[1714839161]

1714839161

[1714839161]

1714839161

[Anonymous]

There is not a free market in pumps because government services have no incentive to be efficient. They are willing to bid inflated prices for them. If a fire service had to sustain without a deficit and with value for all its supporters, bids would be substantially lower and thus the price decreasing.

The free loader problem is not an issue. As long as the fire station is sustaining, nobody is taking a loss. If they voluntarily help houses for free, there is no coercion. Fire services that are charitable will probably use it as a marketing tactic anyways.

Wrong.  Governments are a tiny percentage of the pump market.

A percentage nonetheless and still very capable of  distorting the market. This isn't even counting the regulations and patents that affect the price as well through government-enabled monopolies.

[Hawker]

There is not a free market in pumps because government services have no incentive to be efficient. They are willing to bid inflated prices for them. If a fire service had to sustain without a deficit and with value for all its supporters, bids would be substantially lower and thus the price decreasing.

The free loader problem is not an issue. As long as the fire station is sustaining, nobody is taking a loss. If they voluntarily help houses for free, there is no coercion. Fire services that are charitable will probably use it as a marketing tactic anyways.

Wrong.  Governments are a tiny percentage of the pump market.

A percentage nonetheless and still very capable of  distorting the market. This isn't even counting the regulations and patents that affect the price as well through government-enabled monopolies.

Back in the real world, the price of pumps is related to what people will pay.

I've asked you a simple question several times.  If the taxes are needed to fund the fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?  You refuse to answer because you don't like the answer.

[Anonymous]

There is not a free market in pumps because government services have no incentive to be efficient. They are willing to bid inflated prices for them. If a fire service had to sustain without a deficit and with value for all its supporters, bids would be substantially lower and thus the price decreasing.

The free loader problem is not an issue. As long as the fire station is sustaining, nobody is taking a loss. If they voluntarily help houses for free, there is no coercion. Fire services that are charitable will probably use it as a marketing tactic anyways.

Wrong.  Governments are a tiny percentage of the pump market.

A percentage nonetheless and still very capable of  distorting the market. This isn't even counting the regulations and patents that affect the price as well through government-enabled monopolies.

Back in the real world, the price of pumps is related to what people will pay.

Yes and the government pays distorted prices because they have no incentive to make profit nor run efficiently.

Your question doesn't have an answer. It's an irrational question. The truth is we don't need to force people to pay for things. Slavery is not a rational option.

[MoonShadow]

The logic assumes that the fire service can be provided cheaply and that each house has one owner.  And in rural areas, thats true.  

But in an urban area where buildings are higher and have multiple occupants, it simply won't work.  Even with a monopoly its hard to pay for a decent fire service with the kit to handle fire in a multi-story building.  And in an apartment block, if 1 person out of the 100 or so apartments has paid for the fire service, the other 99 get their fires put out for free as you can't save just one part of one floor of a building.  

So you'd end up with 1 or 2% of people paying for the service.  And since its very expensive, unless they pay millions, even they wouldn't get the service.  You need to make it compulsory for all people in the block just to make the system available to even one person in the block.

Then it would just be a deed restriction of the condo complex, and you are just back to where you are now with one fire suppression company that holds a monopoly on the condo block that you live in.  So you have lost nothing, and if the condo association ever gets sideways with that suppression company, they can vote to amend that clause to another company.

Fire suppression & trash collection are the easy one's for libertarians.  Public safety and road maintaince are the hard ones.  As for the issue about power companies holding monopolies, that's fixable also and some areas actually do have power company choices.  Same for cable tv providers.  It's possible, it's just not allowed in some locales.  After all, do you only have one choice in your Internet services, even if you choose to use a government monopoly such as the phone company to provide it?  I know that I have numerous choices for Internet services, it's just that the monopoly supported companies tend to have cheaper rates because the network was largely already paid for long before the broadband Internet boom.

[paraipan]

Code:

...if one house in a terrace pays for cover, the house next door has got cover for free...

atm we don't really know how a real life bitcoin will solve, or not, these problems we have forever, transparency is a big step forward  

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

I don't really understand the mining part, it will exist as long as bitcoin does or the other way around if you want.

Once we reach 21 million bitcoin, all mining stops. 

Really?  You have over 800 forum posts and still don't understand how bitcoin's encentives work?

[Hawker]

...snip...

I don't really understand the mining part, it will exist as long as bitcoin does or the other way around if you want.

Once we reach 21 million bitcoin, all mining stops. 

Really?  You have over 800 forum posts and still don't understand how bitcoin's encentives work?

Correct.  I thought it would never reach 22 million.

Was I wrong?

[Anonymous]

What's completely idiotic is asking people to literally formulate a business plan in a theoretical free-market environment when the amount of factors is ridiculously infinite. It's a question answered on principle not through proposed systems. The fact is that most desires of today are most effectively met by market principles. It's highly improbable for them not to apply to the ones the government has a monopoly on. I don't even want to imagine what would happen if the government declared a monopoly on soap.

"YOU WANT ALL OF US TO STINK! DERP HERPIN DERP!"

[Hawker]

Yes and the government pays distorted prices because they have no incentive to make profit nor run efficiently.

Your question doesn't have an answer. It's an irrational question. The truth is we don't need to force people to pay for things. Slavery is not a rational option.

As I have told you several times, pumps are not a government product.  Governments are one customer among many and its a global market.  The manufacturers are private companies and if they could make the pumps at a price point to reach more customers, they would.  Thats how markets work.  

You are arguing that since some of their customers are paying with tax dollars, the entire market is distorted.  That is not how markets work.

The question is perfectly rational. Fire service must be paid for and even with 100% of people paying, its expensive.  If less than 100% pay, you may not have a service.

The free loader problem is not an issue. As long as the fire station is sustaining, nobody is taking a loss. If they voluntarily help houses for free, there is no coercion. Fire services that are charitable will probably use it as a marketing tactic anyways.

If free loading is possible, then no-one will pay.  Why would they? If no-one pays, there is no fire service.

[paraipan]

...snip...

I don't really understand the mining part, it will exist as long as bitcoin does or the other way around if you want.

Once we reach 21 million bitcoin, all mining stops. 

Really?  You have over 800 forum posts and still don't understand how bitcoin's encentives work?

Correct.  I thought it would never reach 22 million.

Was I wrong?

seems to me that you trolling Hawker... 

[Anonymous]

Yes and the government pays distorted prices because they have no incentive to make profit nor run efficiently.

Your question doesn't have an answer. It's an irrational question. The truth is we don't need to force people to pay for things. Slavery is not a rational option.

As I have told you several times, pumps are not a government product.  Governments are one customer among many and its a global market.  The manufacturers are private companies and if they could make the pumps at a price point to reach more customers, they would.  Thats how markets work.  

You are arguing that since some of their customers are paying with tax dollars, the entire market is distorted.  That is not how markets work.

The question is perfectly rational.  You admit that you can't cope with the free rider problem.

The free loader problem is not an issue. As long as the fire station is sustaining, nobody is taking a loss. If they voluntarily help houses for free, there is no coercion. Fire services that are charitable will probably use it as a marketing tactic anyways.

If free loading is possible, then no-one will pay.  Why would they? If no-one pays, there is no fire service.

Yes, that is how markets work. If you have a man who stole millions of dollars and wants a shit-load of cookies, do you think he's going to feel a loss if he overpays by a huge margin? Hell no. He didn't earn the money and he can always steal some more.

You don't understand how markets work especially concerning when somebody is willing to make liberal and excessive bids with no concern for loss.

To answer your last question, there is a thing called a contract within a community. I could address that with tons of theoretical solutions. The fact is just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't make it impossible.

If we were discussing intergalactic space travel, is it truly accurate to say its impossible because we can't overcome current obstacles? It's inane, this logic.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I don't really understand the mining part, it will exist as long as bitcoin does or the other way around if you want.

Once we reach 21 million bitcoin, all mining stops. 

Really?  You have over 800 forum posts and still don't understand how bitcoin's encentives work?

Correct.  I thought it would never reach 22 million.

Was I wrong?

seems to me that you trolling Hawker... 

It's a matter of semantics. The fact is Bitcoin will require computing power in order to function no matter if all the Bitcoins will be claimed. People will still run Bitcoin miners in the far future but to only collect fees. This can be still considered mining but only to facilitate transactions.

I don't think they will be generating more than 22 million bitcoin though?  So it won't really be mining - just payment processing.  Or have I misunderstood?

There will never be more than 21 million as you stated earlier, but it's an asymptotic approach and will take more than just a couple years.  We have another 10 or 15 years before we even get close.  There will always be some mining because of the incentive of the last few bitcoins and the transaction costs (along as bitcoins still have value and don't completely crash).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_bitcoins_over_time.png

It seems to me you need to do a little research.

[MoonShadow]

In some way, publicly funded fire stations do have a form of competition, even in urban areas.  The technology of automated fire suppression that just about every insurance company in America now requires of commercial or industrial new construction.  It makes their insurance premiums much lower to have these systems, and this is because fire companies are less necessary and over time are reduced across urban areas, for a modern fire company can 'cover' a larger area effectively and the fires that do occur are much reduced in magnitute on average.  Most commercially manufactured furniture are 'fire resistant' as compared to a couple of decades ago for similar reasons, because insurance companies demanded same.  Homeowners are still free to have a private furniture maker, such as an old Amish carpenter, to make their couch; but importers cannot import a couch that doesn't meet the UL standards for fire resistance.

And before you ask, UL is a private testing company, funded by the insurance companies themselves.  The building code just requires that manufactured (and imported) products be 'listed' by such a testing company, and the import regs make an end run around the code that much more difficult, so you could buy any random new couch and set a lit cigerette upon the cushion and it's significantly less likely (i.e. not impossible) for it to catch the whole couch (and thus the house) on fire than the fabrics that were available for couches just two decades ago.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Yes, that is how markets work. If you have a man who stole millions of dollars and wants a shit-load of cookies, do you think he's going to feel a loss if he overpays by a huge margin? Hell no. He didn't earn the money and he can always steal some more.

You don't understand markets work when somebody is willing to make liberal and excessive bids with no concern for loss.

To answer your last question, there is a thing called a contract within a community. I could address that with tons of theoretical solutions. The fact is just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't make it impossible.

If we were discussing intergalactic space travel, is it truly accurate to say its impossible because we can't overcome current obstacles? It's inane, this logic.

Fire departments are desperately short of money so don't try to say that the global market for pumps is distorted by fire departments.  Most US cities are struggling to afford any new kit from what I read.

If you have a solution to the free loader problem, let me know.  So far, you haven't.

[Anonymous]

Yes and the government pays distorted prices because they have no incentive to make profit nor run efficiently.

Your question doesn't have an answer. It's an irrational question. The truth is we don't need to force people to pay for things. Slavery is not a rational option.

As I have told you several times, pumps are not a government product.  Governments are one customer among many and its a global market.  The manufacturers are private companies and if they could make the pumps at a price point to reach more customers, they would.  Thats how markets work.  

You are arguing that since some of their customers are paying with tax dollars, the entire market is distorted.  That is not how markets work.

The question is perfectly rational.  You admit that you can't cope with the free rider problem.

The free loader problem is not an issue. As long as the fire station is sustaining, nobody is taking a loss. If they voluntarily help houses for free, there is no coercion. Fire services that are charitable will probably use it as a marketing tactic anyways.

If free loading is possible, then no-one will pay.  Why would they? If no-one pays, there is no fire service.

Yes, that is how markets work. If you have a man who stole millions of dollars and wants a shit-load of cookies, do you think he's going to feel a loss if he overpays by a huge margin? Hell no. He didn't earn the money and he can always steal some more.

You don't understand markets work when somebody is willing to make liberal and excessive bids with no concern for loss.

To answer your last question, there is a thing called a contract within a community. I could address that with tons of theoretical solutions. The fact is just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't make it impossible.

If we were discussing intergalactic space travel, is it truly accurate to say its impossible because we can't overcome current obstacles? It's inane, this logic.

Fire departments are desperately short of money so don't try to say that the global market for pumps is distorted by fire departments.  Most US cities are struggling to afford any new kit from what I read.

If you have a solution to the free loader problem, let me know.  So far, you haven't.

Fire departments are desperate for money because they do, in fact, overspend and have overspent. They overspend for labor and everything else because, again, there is no incentive to be profitable. You have yet to refute this.

I don't need to give you a solution. Innovations aren't free nor do they come on a whim. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it impossible. You have no argument in this regard.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If you have a solution to the free loader problem, let me know.  So far, you haven't.

Fire departments are desperate for money because they do, in fact, overspend and have overspent. They overspend for labor and everything else because, again, there is no incentive to be profitable. You have yet to refute this.

I don't need to give you a solution. Innovations aren't free nor do they come on a whim. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it impossible. You have no argument in this regard.

I know that British fire services operate on below median wages and have the same cost issues.  Don't assume that because the US has messed up its city finances that the rest of the world is the same.  That refutes your whole argument that the global market for pumps is distorted by American fire departments.  

If you are proposing replacing the existing fire services, you do need to give a solution to the free rider problem.  Its great that you have ideals but unless you can demonstrate that your idea works, you can't ask people to risk being burnt to death for it.  The onus is on you to show you have something better.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

If you have a solution to the free loader problem, let me know.  So far, you haven't.

Fire departments are desperate for money because they do, in fact, overspend and have overspent. They overspend for labor and everything else because, again, there is no incentive to be profitable. You have yet to refute this.

I don't need to give you a solution. Innovations aren't free nor do they come on a whim. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it impossible. You have no argument in this regard.

I know that British fire services operate on below median wages and have the same cost issues.  Don't assume that because the US has messed up its city finances that the rest of the world is the same.  That refutes your whole argument that the global market for pumps is distorted by American fire departments.  

If you are proposing replacing the existing fire services, you do need to give a solution to the free rider problem.  Its great that you have ideals but unless you can demonstrate that your idea works, you can't ask people to risk being burnt to death for it.  The onus is on you to show you have something better.

The solution to the free rider problem is that of homeowners' insurance.  No mortgage officer in their right mind is going to approve a home mortgage without homeowners' insurance, and no insurance company is going to approve a policy that doesn't require that fire protection is paid and current.  So if your mortgage is paid off, and you live between two homes on a suburban cul-de-sac, and you choose to drop your fire protection fee (and thus your homeowners' insurance policy, for even if you pay them, they will refuse to pay out if you have an event) and a fire starts in your house, your outta luck.  But your neighbors are protected from your negligence via their own homeowners' insurance policies and their fire protection fees.  The fire company could show up to protect the other homes from your blaze, and charge you anything on the spot to put your home out, or simply let it burn while dousing your neighbors.  Do this once, and the free rider problem disappears.

[Hawker]

...snip...

If you have a solution to the free loader problem, let me know.  So far, you haven't.

Fire departments are desperate for money because they do, in fact, overspend and have overspent. They overspend for labor and everything else because, again, there is no incentive to be profitable. You have yet to refute this.

I don't need to give you a solution. Innovations aren't free nor do they come on a whim. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it impossible. You have no argument in this regard.

I know that British fire services operate on below median wages and have the same cost issues.  Don't assume that because the US has messed up its city finances that the rest of the world is the same.  That refutes your whole argument that the global market for pumps is distorted by American fire departments.  

If you are proposing replacing the existing fire services, you do need to give a solution to the free rider problem.  Its great that you have ideals but unless you can demonstrate that your idea works, you can't ask people to risk being burnt to death for it.  The onus is on you to show you have something better.

The solution to the free rider problem is that of homeowners' insurance.  No mortgage officer in their right mind is going to approve a home mortgage without homeowners' insurance, and no insurance company is going to approve a policy that doesn't require that fire protection is paid and current.  So if your mortgage is paid off, and you live between two homes on a suburban cul-de-sac, and you choose to drop your fire protection fee (and thus your homeowners' insurance policy, for even if you pay them, they will refuse to pay out if you have an event) and a fire starts in your house, your outta luck.  But your neighbors are protected from your negligence via their own homeowners' insurance policies and their fire protection fees.  The fire company could show up to protect the other homes from your blaze, and charge you anything on the spot to put your home out, or simply let it burn while dousing your neighbors.  Do this once, and the free rider problem disappears.

Honestly, my experience of running a residents company is that some people won't pay unless you take them to the courtroom steps.  Just because someone across town was forced to pay at the last moment, many others will think "I will wait until I have a fire and then pay" and the whole service suffers from not having the income stream that allows it to purchase kit.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

If you have a solution to the free loader problem, let me know.  So far, you haven't.

Fire departments are desperate for money because they do, in fact, overspend and have overspent. They overspend for labor and everything else because, again, there is no incentive to be profitable. You have yet to refute this.

I don't need to give you a solution. Innovations aren't free nor do they come on a whim. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it impossible. You have no argument in this regard.

I know that British fire services operate on below median wages and have the same cost issues.  Don't assume that because the US has messed up its city finances that the rest of the world is the same.  That refutes your whole argument that the global market for pumps is distorted by American fire departments.  

If you are proposing replacing the existing fire services, you do need to give a solution to the free rider problem.  Its great that you have ideals but unless you can demonstrate that your idea works, you can't ask people to risk being burnt to death for it.  The onus is on you to show you have something better.

The solution to the free rider problem is that of homeowners' insurance.  No mortgage officer in their right mind is going to approve a home mortgage without homeowners' insurance, and no insurance company is going to approve a policy that doesn't require that fire protection is paid and current.  So if your mortgage is paid off, and you live between two homes on a suburban cul-de-sac, and you choose to drop your fire protection fee (and thus your homeowners' insurance policy, for even if you pay them, they will refuse to pay out if you have an event) and a fire starts in your house, your outta luck.  But your neighbors are protected from your negligence via their own homeowners' insurance policies and their fire protection fees.  The fire company could show up to protect the other homes from your blaze, and charge you anything on the spot to put your home out, or simply let it burn while dousing your neighbors.  Do this once, and the free rider problem disappears.

Honestly, my experience of running a residents company is that some people won't pay unless you take them to the courtroom steps.  Just because someone across town was forced to pay at the last moment, many others will think "I will wait until I have a fire and then pay" and the whole service suffers from not having the income stream that allows it to purchase kit.

Did you have an argument to refute my 'mortgage & homeowners insurance' response to the "free rider problem"?  Or are you just musing about the difficulties that some people will impose upon a bill collector?