• Xenny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    4 months ago

    Firefighters were literally private companies before we collectively decided it was a bad idea. Firefighters would just sit and watch a place burn if nobody payed up. Sometimes rival firefighters would even get in brawls over who gets the contract while the house was burning down beside them.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      There were cases of firefighters setting fires so that they could be paid to put them out. Why not?

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’re municipally operated here and we actually had a case a few years back where a small town that couldn’t reasonably afford to operate their own fire department needed to make arrangements with a nearby larger town to have fire emergency response services cover them.

      The larger town said sure, $50 per year per home. Small town had 63 people, but some refused to pay. Fire department said they weren’t going to keep track of which houses were and were not covered, so they had to all be on board or none of them would be.

      Naturally a home later caught fire and burned to the ground. Thankfully no one was inside at the time.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Damn, that isn’t even all that much. Tiny town so I’m assuming some people just couldn’t afford it.

      • Contravariant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Somewhat predictably they also started the first public firefighting force after a large part of the city burned down, again. Apparently prevention is just not profitable if you’re only paying people to extinguish fire.

        Didn’t prevent what is now known as the Great Fire of Rome though.