
While California Fires Rage, the Rich Hire Private Firefighters - mlthoughts2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/style/private-firefighters-california.html
======
hirundo
I read about a guy in his 80s who did the DIY equivalent of this. He was
concerned about fire danger so spent years and much savings preparing. He
built a large water tank, got lots of pro fire fighting gear including a full
bunker suit with breathing gear, etc. The fire happened, burned out his
neighbors, but by actively fighting it he saved his property.

Regardless of whether of not the right amount of taxes are spent on public
firefighting, this seems admirable to me. If he had hired someone else to
fight the fire, his foresight and preparation, if perhaps not his personal
courage, would be as admirable.

------
fortran77
I read the article. But I don't get the point.

What are they proposing? That people with means be prohibited from hiring
people to perform services for them?

~~~
leoh
Two thoughts:

* fires are becoming an increasing problem and there isn't a sound, coordinated, public effort to deal with them right now; if the wealthy, who generally have a lot of political power, are shielded from the fire issue through their personal wealth, then there could be a diminished incentive to solve the problem generally for the public

* it's hard to fight fires and the wealthy could marshal firefighters that are needed for public usage and the public might not offer enough compensation/resources to protect the public

~~~
leoh
Can't reply to `valley-green` since their post was reported. But I genuinely
am sorry if this came off as an affront to firefighters as they do work
incredibly hard. What I mean to say is that there is a more general public,
government-led effort required to cut back fire risk; in no particular order:

* more controlled burns

* continue to upgrade firefighting capabilities

* continue to hire more firefighters

* enhance preventative maintenance of power lines by cutting back brush

* enhance power infrastructure by insulating or burying lines

------
anonygler
While I wake up at 2am to a crying child, the rich hire Private Nannies.

Our society is offensive, yes, but this is an entirely natural consequence of
an unfettered accumulation of wealth.

Private Security, Private School, Private Transit, etc. Why not Private
Firefighting?

~~~
beerandt
It's just as arguable to say that this is an entirely natural consequence of
government taking over an industry, and then eventually fails to provide the
level of service the market demands.

Basic economics- demand of a service exceeds supply, expect newcomers to
provide said service at a premium price.

The problem I have with people soaking negatively about this is: the private
firefighters are reducing the workload of the public firefighters. It should
be seen as a win-win.

Also, firefighting should be left to the properly trained, if not
professionals. While I suppose the same argument could be made for nannies,
I'd argue child rearing is much more forgiving to novice mistakes.

~~~
txgxyxdkssppg
> entirely natural consequence of government taking over an industry, and then
> eventually fails to provide the level of service the market demands.

This is wrong. The wealthy will always be willing to pay for services that the
poor cannot afford. The government is meant to provide consistent service to
all regardless of wealth, for services we as a society deem essential to a
functional collective.

When the rich and powerful lobby for a reduction in services to others, in
order to benefit themselves financially, while then purchasing supplementary
insurance for said thing undermines the collective good. This is the opposite
of what should happen in society, especially after those same people gained
the benefit of these things to gain their wealth.

> the private firefighters are reducing the workload of the public
> firefighters. It should be seen as a win-win.

This is also wrong. Instead of a force to care for all, this results in a
reduced public force and an increased private force, where Rich Bob gets saved
and Poor Bob has his house burned down. This is fundamentally at odds with the
promise of a basic set of services that are equal across a society. Those with
means pay a small bit more to help the collective of their countrymen all live
more equitably.

~~~
foogazi
Would Rich Bob’s house have burned down also if he hadn’t hired private
firefighters?

How is that better?

~~~
txgxyxdkssppg
If the suggestion is that it's better that at least rich people might be
safe...

No, it's better that everyone has that.

------
KC8ZKF
“Uber for fires.” You’ll be richer than Crassus.

------
foogazi
What about people that buy their own cars while the others take public
transit?

Why does everything have to be socialized?

~~~
txgxyxdkssppg
Oh hi again. Your point still comes back to "I'm wealthy enough to afford
this, why do I have to help others. Also I want the benefits of a society"

I don't have any further commentary.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/GQ6Aw](http://archive.is/GQ6Aw)

------
RickJWagner
Reminds me a bit of all the famous wealthy people caught with green lawns
during a drought and time of water-rationing.

Barbra Streisand, Cher, and a host of others were exposed in a 'Good for thee,
but not for me' moment.

Not all are bad, though. Jennifer Aniston tore out her sod and landscaped her
property with drought-resistant foliage. There are some good ones!

