What facts are you basing this assumption on? If the law is the same for all and the private police force operates within the law, what makes you think that they will act like gangs? Perhaps the opposite is more likely - the police will be responsible to the citizens who pay them and actually protect them, as opposed to the current situation where the police work for the State, are responsible to the State and protect the State, not the citizen. As it stands now, the police does not have a duty to protect the citizen. But the State has been feeding us propaganda that the State is so great and indispensable!

An interesting idea, but I think the completely different core competencies would make for a strange corporate makeup. I think they'd rather contract out to local providers of fire protection services similar to how insurers contract with doctors.

Assuming the neighbor wanted a loan to buy his house, it is likely the lender would require that he pay for the fire service to get the loan. Alternatively if he wanted to buy insurance to protect his house against fire hazard, the insurance company would not write the policy unless the home owner could prove he paid the voluntary fire protection fee. Almost everyone would pay as a result. The rest would have to be "self insuring."

Actually, the home insurance providers would be the most likely to offer fire and other protection services. After all, having their own money on the line would make them far more motivated to provide the best service and most rapid response times possible.

You said "I am not sure I could sit by and watch my neighbors house burn in the example above, and I am not certain I would want to live in a society that could do so."

That is a concern you could raise when you were shopping around for a firefighters' service to buy. In a free market, a service which meets its customers' needs and addresses their concerns will succeed.

The issue of private vs. government services reminds me of this article I posted about a private police service in Detroit: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... With it, some people pay, but even non-payers benefit.

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson

In a fairly small population.
If the population was to grow, with the basic principles of Objectivism as the ethical base, and the children had grown up with those principles both taught and illustrated by people's actions...well, who knows? It might happen.

That's right. Handle the emergency now, and worry about collecting later. That's how we do things in this country. That's how we would handle all-private fire services.

The main reason a public police force must exist, and take precedence over private guard forces, is to keep everybody on the same page regarding the management of physical force. Otherwise, private guard forces turn into warring militias, or even gangs!

Government, an agency which is force, should be
stripped down to its proper function: to protect man
from force and violence (including fraud), and to
punish same. (As to firemen, fire companies could
operate as parts of insurance companies; and also, there would be no prohibition on volunteer fire
departments).
As to paying for government, there could be
payment for actual services when rendered;no-
tarization of contracts (percentage of the mone-
tary amount concerned); if you don't want to pay
for it, don't get it notarized, and take the conse-
quences of the risk (I got that idea from Ayn
Rand, who also mentioned a lottery); also, there
could be something like the present local sales
tax; if the store owner declined to pay it, he
wouldn't get his Law Enforcement Fee sticker to
put in the window, and, if held up and he called
911, the police would refuse to come.--As to
buying things over the Internet, the same prin-
ciple could apply; the government would de-
cline to prosecute cases of identity theft which
might take place over a website which did not
agree to pay the Law Enforcement Fee.

Also, people already pay to have the govern-
ment register their patents and copyrights.
This (the above) could take care of local and state law
enforcement. As to Federal and national defense, there could be a certain percentage of
whatever was in the state coffers (for instance,
25%) to go to the Federal government for these
purposes, so that a man would know, when he
paid his local Law Enforcement Fee, he was
also paying for national defense.--
Would this pay for all the things the govern-
ment does now? Of course not!!--But that is
part of my point. I don't want the government
to do all the things it does now. And if it were
so much smaller, and leaner, people likely would
not be so unwilling to pay for it as we often are
now.

People have free will. Therefore it is always possible that someone will turn into a thief even if he abhors theft now. However, I reject your premise that the "success" of Objectivism depends upon honorable behavior of all. A rational legal system has sanctions on behaviors that abridge rights.

Rational thought isn't really a common characterization of mankind in general, unfortunately. Thought takes effort and many people simply do not have the will to - as Hercule Poirot would put it - "exercise the gray cells." Our political establishment is merely an extension of this.

I lived in Montana and there were two waste facilities one could engage with for garbage collection on a weekly basis. It was awesome. The workers were friendly and considerate (to the point I actually gave them cookies at Christmas) and the bills were very low (I think we paid $15/month for two garbage cans).

I'm not quite sure how that would work with the Fire services, but I'd certainly be in favor of giving it a try.

You are correct that Rand was speaking of about how things should be, not how they are. You are also right that many employers would simply price the non-union workers at the same scale as the union workers. Some workers would accept that, others may not. Other employers would jump at the chance to price at multiple scales. The non-union workers might receive higher or lower pay offers which could be accepted or rejected. Some might want the same wages and benefits as the union employees. The employer would be free to accept or reject such offers on an individual or group basis. And the problem with such arrangements would be what exactly?

The success of Objectivism depends upon rational and honorable behavior of all citizens. Is this even possible?

In a fully free society, there is also never a monopoly provider of services. Fire protection, like any other service, would be offered competitively by multiple providers, most of whom would likely offer insurance as well.. The question therefore would not be whether to pay for fire protection but WHICH fire protection service to contract with. Someone who foregoes the offer of protection might be a fool, but that's another issue. :)

One must keep in mind that Rand was expressing an ideal. I won't work in any current society. Perhaps in the future on Objectivist Island, populated by rational persons, it would work. Most of the "leaders" of today, don't fit that description. Some may be more rational than others, but I don't think any of them could meet the necessary criteria. Take a guy like Ted Cruz. He has a resume that would knock your socks off. Brilliant, from his humble beginnings to his current status. But in the midst of all that is the expression of devotion to a mystic entity, whom he credits for his success.
"Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow, you're always a day away." -- The Musical Annie.

Unfortunately, being capable of rational thinking is not a job requirement for those holding political office. If it were Washington would be a wasteland. (Not that it isn't already)

Well said.

One of the real problems we have with our current system is that it encourages free riders and taxes the daylights out of everyone else to pay for it. I am not so much against communal services like police and fire departments as I am the free rider problem that seems to go along with it. We pay for garbage, sewer, and utilities services, we should be willing to pay for fire services the same way.

And I'm not sure if anyone notices, but we already pay for the roads in our fuel taxes. The funny thing there is that the government is both complaining about the decrease in fuel taxes while simultaneously mandating more fuel-efficient cars AND encouraging the use of electric cars! Talk about shooting one's self in the foot!

The reason I think that "all workers would be paid the same" or more accurately on the same scale is because in most work places this is true. I suspect it is true because creating a pay scale is work that most employers don't wish to do twice. Yes in an ideal world everyone would be evaluated and paid for their personal merit, but that takes time that the employer may not have, or may not choose to spend.

I advocate "subscriptions" to services in exchange for benefits, and would choose insurance rates commensurate with risk and those subscriptions. E.g. subscribe to the local fire company of volunteers, and because I am a subscriber, I pay less to insure my property. Insurance rates are much higher for those non-subscribers, and substantial risk of loss is assigned to those without either subscription or insurance. IBID for roads, courts, defense. I might even decide to subsidize my neighbor's subscriptions or insurance to reduce my own risk, just as I might choose to support a scholarship for a gifted (or ungifted) student. (Keep in mind that many so-called services we are required by a government to pay for are in fact not required by any sense or sensibility, and lead to the fraud, waste, and abuse perpetrated upon us -- for example, a firearms license, or the Fed.) -- Now why in blazes did Wisconsin even have to pass a "law" regarding unions and right-to-work?

There is no reason to think that in a free society all workers would be paid the same. Perhaps the unionized workers could negotiate a higher wage. Perhaps not. Their contract does not bind the non-union workers or the employer to anything. As to the roads, anyone would tries to "free ride" on private roads will be subject to liability in court for theft of services or trespass.

Or the fire company would be paid (perhaps at a reduced rate) by a charitable group formed to accept contributions from those who wish to contribute. In any event, the fire company's priority would always be to save the property of its paying subscribers.

"My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. I advocate the separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run." Ayn Rand, The Playboy Interview, 1964.

If this were how things had been kept from way back it would be working fine, but as we know the thieves took over and have found as many ways as is currently possible to extricate or steal our money to benefit themselves for so long that it is virtually impossible to change to what should have been.

For the person who chooses not to pay the fee, if his house catches fire, the fire department would put the fire out, but would also take a lien on the property for a higher fee, and could foreclose on the property if it isn't paid. So, you don't have to worry about your neighbor's house burning down.