[stevendhansen]

The only alternatives to privatization I can see are:

1) force the population to collectively pay for these services or 2) force specific individuals to provide these services for free

Option 1 is morally questionable and option 2 is a type of slavery, so it seems privatization isnt quite as bad as the alternatives. At least with a privatized service those who wish to opt out, can.

[SolaceQuantum]

Wait, why is it morally questionable that a society comes together to, uh, pool resources and do social things?

We are a social species. It makes sense that a social species pools resources together for the good of their collective whole.

[arcticbull]

Remind me, how is the collection of taxes to pay for services in the public interest 'morally questionable'? The fire department in particular is such an obvious case because a fire affecting one property can easily spread to the next -- and so on. Is that something you want to happen because the property owner of the first house couldn't afford the fire department? That's morally questionable.

[jschwartzi]

Moreover, given a choice, a lot of people wouldn't pay ahead of time for a private fire service, leading to the kind of bankruptcy situations the article is describing. Some localities solve this problem by levying a property tax and using it to maintain public emergency services, so that anyone who would benefit from their presence in a catastrophe has already paid for the service.

This whole article just discusses the consequences of not wanting to pay taxes on anything. It perfectly described a libertarian paradise of private, for-hire, emergency services.