Let the market cultivate new ideas
- |
RE “PRIVATIZING fire protection’’ (Op-ed, June 30): Peter Funt’s argument that privatization of fire departments will lead to the disenfranchisement of fire protection for the poor runs counter to the laws of economics. The only support for this line of reasoning is the situation Funt describes in which a California company essentially provides fire protection for the life of a home for a single fee of $30,000. This, however, exists in a distorted and non-competitive market; that is, a market where the fire protection that has to be provided is of such high quality, and thus so costly, that it outweighs the government-provided service.
If competition were to be established in this market, businesses would develop fire plans to help both the rich and poor because they could profit from tailoring plans to the needs of each group. To disagree is to say that businesses do not seek profit. In competition, businesses must try new things, and are ultimately held accountable through profit for success in meeting consumer needs, or through losses for failing to give consumers a better or cheaper product.
If the market can cultivate new ideas to develop a better service, then why not allow the same process to raise the standards of fire protection?
Brandon Pizzola
Arlington, Va.
