The difference is, if the firemen are government employees, they can vote themselves rich.
http://www.publicsectorinc.org/2014/06/firefighter-pay-shows...
Government employees can use violence to steal from you.
And if you think a private corporation can't deploy violence, you probably have never in your life read anything about why we had a rise of labor unions in this country; companies used to be able to call on not only the government's army but also their own private armies to put down, via deadly force, anyone perceived as a threat to the company's profits.
Who are they robbing? Shareholders! But shareholders choose to be shareholders. You don't like what the executives are up to, you can sell your shares.
> private armies to put down, via deadly force, anyone perceived as a threat to the company's profits.
Ok, now you are being inconsistent. You think it's wrong for executives to be paid above-market wages, but you think it acceptable for employees to be paid above-market wages. Every dollar paid to an employee above market wage comes from shareholders!
But none from taxpayers. All out of corporate profits.
Nope, perfectly consistent. If one group gets to vote themselves a raise, all groups should get to.
Or, more rigorously: if we're going to introduce artificial legally-blessed structures to allow people to pool their resources in order to accomplish things, or wield power in the market, that they couldn't when acting alone, then... I think we should be consistent about it. The corporation exists as an artificial legally-blessed structure for pooling of capital, and the union exists as an artificial legally-blessed structure for pooling of labor. I don't see a way to argue, from a consistent moral/ethical position, for allowing one to exist while forbidding the other. And similarly, the fewer regulations we place on one of these types of entities, the fewer we should place on the other.
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.
We are a social species. It makes sense that a social species pools resources together for the good of their collective whole.
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.