There are been all sorts of explanations for the Los Angeles fires. For example, the financial cutbacks in the LAFD. The fact that three lesbians, all named Kirsten, or some variation, are now in charge. Then there is global warming and that old standby, temperature change. There is also the fact that the reservoirs ran dry, and that fresh water was needed, not salt water. Further, both LA in particular, and California in general are one party jurisdictions, which are more intent upon fighting temperature change than fires. It cannot be denied that heavy winds, almost unprecedented, played an important role in this disaster.
Then there is wokeism -- apart from those who are now occupying the positions of mayor, fire chiefs and lead bureaucrats. Once upon a time, in order to become a fireman (this was before that advent of “firefighter”) you had to carry people on your back, up and down ladders. There was even a fireman’s carry (not a fire fighter’s carry) which was used to test for such heavy physical activity. If you failed this exam, you were not selected for this elite profession. But it became apparent that women had greater difficulty in playing these roles than men. Very few of them became firemen. This was deemed sexist, discriminatory, and non-inclusive. So the severity of the tests was greatly reduced, and affirmative action hires took the place of those capable of doing the job.
I should now like to add one additional explanation for this present plight of the City of Angels: forest socialism.
Who, which organization, pray tell, was the owner and manager of the trees that were ablaze? It is government, of course. Not private enterprise. Do these owners lose a penny of their personal fortunes when these trees go up in smoke? Of course not. The very idea is ludicrous. Why, these are public forests, dummy; you can’t expect the bureaucrats in charge to pay for their errors which cause forest fires.
Thomas Sowell said it best when he wrote “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
How would things work if the trees in LaLa Land had been owned privately? Well, the owners would clear brush which serves as tinder for such conflagrations. They would ensure that there were spaces in between the trees such that equipment could be mobilized. They would ensure sources of water, etc.
You might object that the present managers do that too. They are not entirely out to lunch. However, this objection misses the point: they do not lose money if they fail to do a good job; private owners do. This means, that a company which owns forests and takes good care of them can earn profits and expand its base of operation. Those who are relatively inept, must give way to others who are more capable. That is free enterprise in operation.
How does it work in the public sector? It functions via democratic elections which take place every two or four years and rarely, if ever, turn on competence in precluding fires. In contrast, the dollar vote works every day, every hour, every second in the private sector.
It is rare in economics and in the social sciences in general for there to be any controlled experiments. The East and West Germany case is an exception to this general rule. Both shared the same language, the same history, the same culture, the same intelligence level, the same pretty much everything else. Due to an accident of war, they were split apart. East Germany almost totally eschewed private property, except for personal belongings like tooth brushes and underwear. West Germany was no model of laissez faire economics, but its system much more closely resembled the model put forth by Adam Smith in his book Wealth of Nations. We all know the results of that particular controlled experiment.
Want to preclude the repetition of the horrid events now being suffered by Los Angelinos? Privatize forests. And reservoirs too, while you’re at it.
