
Kim Kardashian's Private Firefighters Expose the Fault Lines of America - shenanigoat
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/11/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-history-private-firefighting/575887
======
everybodyknows
Article fails to explore the apparent conflicts of interest, which remain even
if you happen to think it's fair for private parties to hire their own
firefighters.

For a start, are Kim's team allowed to tap public hydrants? This will reduce
pressure available to any public firefighters nearby.

------
nunez
I don’t understand the issue here. Couple buys very expensive item that few
others purchase; item is very expensive to insure; for hire firefighters are
cheaper than replacing the item (and any dependencies) at a loss; insurers
dispatch said firefighters to avoid total loss.

Doing this for everyone wouldn’t scale, which is why towns have firefighting
units.

Also, people have a weird aversion to insurance for expensive items. So many
people (at least on Reddit) advocate against purchasing AppleCare and
additional insurance for $1000+ items but balk at the high cost of replacing a
broken screen... that’s much cheaper to fix with insurance.

~~~
timoth3y
I think the reason many are both emotionally and logically concerned about
this is that see it in the broader context of the growing wealth inequality
and life inequality in America.

In principle, having the wealthy rely on their own firefighters, water supply,
police force, education system, or medical system should not reduce the
quality of said service to the rest of the people, but in practice, it always
seems to.

Whenever there is a widespread social problem, its best to solve it for
everyone. If the 0.01% are drinking from the same water supply and relying on
the same firefighters that we are, it is in their best interest to maintain a
high quality of service. Once they have a way to solve that problem for
themselves, they are less likely to support using their taxes to improve and
maintain these services.

~~~
nunez
In what ways are these private equivalents better than their public
counterparts, especially in the US?

------
elliekelly
Private firefighters for the wealthy and slave labor fighting the fires for
the rest of us. Truly disgusting.

~~~
craftyguy
> slave labor

Source? If you are referring to inmates who _volunteer_ to fight fires, then
you are just plain wrong.

~~~
elliekelly
I didn't say it was illegal slave labor. But it's absolutely slave labor.
Under Federal law its defined as "the services of a person... by means of
force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint
to that person or another person."[1] Imprisonment is a physical restraint. If
you pull the entire statute you'll notice that consent isn't a defense. That's
because consent and coercion are mutually exclusive.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude _except
as a punishment for crime._

Make no mistake, those "volunteers" are modern day slaves. They may have the
blessing of the Constitution, but they're slaves nonetheless. Colorado
actually just officially outlawed it last week.[2] A few other sources:

\- [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/national-
prison-s...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/national-prison-
strike-slavery-.html)

\- [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/prison-strike-modern-
da...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/prison-strike-modern-day-
slavery_us_5b857777e4b0511db3d21da8)

\- [https://eji.org/history-racial-injustice-prison-
labor](https://eji.org/history-racial-injustice-prison-labor)

[1] 18 U.S. Code § 1589

[2] [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/11/6/18056408/c...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/11/6/18056408/colorado-election-results-amendment-a-slavery-
forced-prison-labor-passes)

~~~
craftyguy
Federal, sure, but not all inmate firefighters are in federal prison, and some
(most?) states have voted to remove the 'except as punishment for crime' bit.

~~~
elliekelly
Removing the language doesn't suddenly not make it slavery. When the states
remove that language it means prison labor programs (such as the one in
California) are unconstitutional. Why? Because those programs are slavery and
when that language is removed those programs no longer have the exemption that
made it constitutional.

~~~
craftyguy
Wat? Are you arguing that all imprisonment is 'slavery' since it entails
physically constraining prisoners? With that definition any institution that
'physically constrains' people is slavery, including public schools which
prohibit students from leaving during school hours. Those students are
physically constrained from leaving the premises, for example. In many cases
there's even a cop to enforce it.

You mentioned Colorado, and I implied Colorado and others that have followed
suit, in my earlier comment which I assumed that you read before you wrote
this reply.

Your #1 source does not mention the text you attributed to it. And it's an
opinion piece. It mentions that the inmates who _volunteer_ to work do so for
low wages. Well, they could also choose not to work on those programs. What
proof do you have that they were coerced (I'm actually not arguing against it,
but looking to correct my opinion if necessary).

In any case, states do things that the federal government does not agree with
_all the time_ (legal weed, for one). It's a crucial feature of our system of
government.

~~~
elliekelly
That's not at all what I'm saying. The important distinction you're missing is
any _labor_ that is performed without fair compensation (in the U.S., that
would be minimum wage) while physically constrained. Mandatory schooling as
well as the draft have been adjudicated under the Thirteenth Amendment and are
not within the definition of slavery. Those cases helped shape the definition
I provided you.

You also don't appear to understand the consequences of Colorado's
Constitutional Amendment. By removing those words from the Colorado
Constitution the "volunteer" prison labor programs are _no longer permitted_.
These programs are, legally, slavery. They just so happen to be a _legal_ form
of slavery under the Federal Constitution because of those important words
"except as punishment for a crime." When those words are removed from the
Colorado Constitution that exception no longer exists for Colorado prison
operators (because a State Constitution cannot contradict or limit an
individual's rights under the Federal Constitution but it can provide
individuals with additional rights). Because these "volunteer" programs are
slavery, and because Colorado's Constitution now prohibits all slavery, no
exceptions, these "volunteer" programs cannot operate.

Prisoners can't freely volunteer because their liberty is at stake. They get
to choose between their life being in danger in prison or endangering their
lives fighting forest fires and perhaps getting out of prison a bit earlier.
This is evidenced by the very low wages. Would you go fight these forest fires
in California for $1/hour? I highly doubt it. Why do they "volunteer" then?
Because they want their freedom. Think about the lengths you would go to in
order to regain your freedom and then think about how much autonomy you would
have in arriving at your decision. It's Sophie's Choice.

------
bvxvbxbxb
Fuck Malibu residents and their blocking of beach access, fake signs and
generally-selfish chicanery.

