Hacker News Reader

Then the Toronto Police spent $35m to switch to encrypted radios, which were cloned and streamed for a fee to tow-trucks.

The best was when the clone was put back in police service and the original kept by the cloners.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-tow-tr...

Wow. You're not kidding.

"What this illustrates is that the tow operator had a genuine TPS radio in his possession, while our officers were using a cloned version," Sinipoli said.

Diligently prosecuting fraud and corruption would seem to be the obvious place to start here.

Can you please not perpetuate the web-cancer which is AMP? Instead, please post the canonical links.

>> The government entering the industry would reduce violence, corruption, and insurance costs for all.

But then you mention: >> Then a month later, Toronto suspended 5 more police in the same tow truck scandal.

If you want to go after corruption that's fine. But it's probably not sufficient to just change an industry from private to government run.

If we start from the premise ‘we have a government corruption problem’, how does giving said government more power and responsibility fix that?

It’s like saying my car is too slow, let me add 500lbs of weight.

It removes a large part of the incentive for corruption (since no one directly receives the profits from towing), and allows for better oversight and much tighter rules.

Could go really wrong though - civil asset forfeiture comes to mind in parts of the US as a relevant analogue.

Civil asset forfeiture is another great example (analogous to these towing companies) of how a profit motive should not be associated with critical societal services. When there is a large incentive to steal or defraud (whether police or tow trucks) it's likely to happen.

This comment just further supports that there should not be such a profit motive.

It could be price controlled in case the police calls them.

How the tow truck industry is now, firefighting used to be before it was turned into a public service. I have a billion orders of magnitude more faith in firefighters than in tow truck companies. Why should we not do the same process to tow trucks?

> Firefighting used to be a private for-profit industry. In the 1800’s, the early days of urbanization, in cities like New York and Baltimore, there were private “clubs” or “gangs” who were in charge of putting out fires. The infamous Boss Tweed started his illustrious political career at a volunteer fire company. The way it functioned was the first club at the scene got money from the insurance company. So, they had an incentive to get there fast. They also had an incentive to sabotage competition. They also often ended up getting in fights over territory and many times buildings would burn down before the issue was resolved. They were glorified looters. It was corrupt, bloated and expensive

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_2...

One of the richest men in rome built a large part of his fortune through firefighting. He would send a slave brigade to any building on fire and offer to buy the property from the owner, refusing to put the fire out unless they sold it to him for cheap.

If memory serves, firefighting technology at the time often consisted of tearing down the building to prevent the conflagration spreading. Saving the building was generally not considered an option, and the way Roman society accounted for value was that such that the building was valuable but the land wasn't.

I'm not sure if Rome of the time actually had the ability to field what we would think of as useful firefighters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_t...

"The government entering the industry would reduce violence, corruption, and insurance costs for all."

???

Conversely, one would ask why on earth the government would ever get into such a thing it has clearly no business doing?

You could make the same arguments about Taxis, Entertainment, Auto Manufacture, R&D, Convenience Stores - hey, let's 'socialize the entire economy' - think of how much more efficient it would be!

The government doesn't really have a good track record in most of those things, so we like to regulate and have interventions where needed i.e. single point of failure.

The government in Quebec and Ontario control Liquor and Beer distribution (beer in the latter) and the result is vastly overpriced goods. The liquor stores admittedly are 'really nice' but there are long line ups, and prices are out of this world. Even as wine sales are allowed in grocery stores in Quebec, the 'Gov. Liquor Monopoly' thuggishly enforced rules such that the quality of the wine out of their stores is so bad it's undrinkable. The only wine that made it out of their mafia control was what you'd get in the US for $4 a bottle, i.e. undrinkable.

So no, some transparency, good laws and regulation would be appropriate, we don't need a cabal forming within the government taking over that system.

> The only wine that made it out of their mafia control was what you'd get in the US for $4 a bottle, i.e. undrinkable.

Hey, I’ve drank many a bottle of 2 buck chuck. It’s not great, but it’s not exactly Night Train...

Edit - reference [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavored_fortified_wine

A single car breaking down on a Bay Area toll bridge can bring the entire region to a stand-still. So the region's transportation authority runs a free tow service to keep bridges clear. It works very well.

Alternatively, the bridge operator could offer a refund of the tolls if the transit of the bridge exceeds a contractually-guaranteed time. The profit motive would ensure adequate towing capabilities are allocated for the bridge.

If towing is controlled by the political apparatus, then perhaps they don't send the tow trucks if a vehicle is blocking the bridge to make a political statement.

Sure, the bridge operator could do that, but why? Bridges don't operate as efficient markets with heavy competition, instead they tend to act as regional monopolies. If you don't cross this bridge, you usually have to drive an hour or more out of your way. This market position of the bridge operator gives them outsize leverage over their customers, and so there is no incentive for them to compete on things like price or low traffic congestion, because who are they competing with?

So, I'm not sure a "profit motive" is really the solution here. Yes, the bridge operator could make that contractual offer and add towing infrastructure out of the goodness of their heart, but there's no incentive to doing so. A decent local government does have that incentive (as they are responsible to the commuters as voters), so they offer that service. You could have regulation that forces the bridge operator to provide this service instead of the government, but is that really less government intervention?

> The profit motive would ensure adequate towing capabilities are allocated for the bridge.

You need to spell out exactly how you think that would work. Because the only "profit motive" I'm seeing is that the bridge operator would want to avoid losing money on refunding tolls, and would be incentivized to provide towing services. But isn't that bridge operator exactly the same government transportation authority that you are proposing doesn't need to be involved in providing towing services? Or are you proposing that the day to day maintenance and operations of a piece of critical infrastructure should be privatized, and then subject to provisions that ensure it's a risky/bad investment?

(spending more karma bringing libertarian ideas into a HN thread on infrastructure, but here goes)

The point is that the bridge makes sure it has towing capabilities on standby for the fastest turnaround possible, since the operators of the bridge only care about the bridge. If a city government has a standing contract with some towing company, they probably use it for all sorts of things, so you wouldn't have that immediate standby capacity.

I don't like the work "privatized." Instead, this would be a bridge built by entrepreneurs and operated as a business.

> I don't like the work "privatized."

Too bad. The meaning fits.

It's unrealistic to propose that a new bridge would be built by private money. There's plenty of private investment money floating around in the Bay Area, and it hasn't come close to happening yet. And you have completely failed to respond to the concern that your proposed toll-refunding mandate would make a privately-operated bridge an even less viable investment than the non-starter it evidently already is. You're just dogmatically asserting that the free market will always provide, when it looks pretty clear that the free market would just say "no thanks".

On the one hand...

"Alternatively, the bridge operator could be legally mandated to offer a refund of the tolls if the transit of the bridge exceeds a contractually-guaranteed time."

I know it offends the libertarian sensibilities, but there's no reason for the operator to voluntarily do that.

On the other hand...

The Fort Lee lane closure thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyregion/george-washingto...)

I don't think anyone even read what I actually wrote.

As to your example I literally pointed out 'single points of access' (i.e. the GG bridge) as an cute concern wherein regulation, special interventions need to be made.

That there are some places wherein intervention needs to be made, doesn't in any way help the argument that the broader case holds - your example does not help support the notion that 'tow trucks' in general should be socialized.

(And FYI I think the 'market oriented solution' to bridge clearing probably won't work - but there may be other, smarter solutions such as 'more bridges' etc.)

The notion of 'tow truck socialization' - while interesting fodder for reddit-ish discussion (ideas are always good) - is in practice, completely ridiculous. It's probably one a good example of things that should be the furthest from socialization.

The 'pro socialization' knee-jerk responders chose a really ugly argument to die on, notably there's an absence of any reasonable arguments for how that would even make sense, other than in the OP 'if the government did it, it would be better!' - which is not an argument.

As a matter of pragmatism, you say of the GG-clearing 'it works well' - but does it really though?

Imagine the costs of such an operation: special vehicles, drivers, surveillance, alarms, having to 'move on a dime' means probably 95% 'downtime' where that special truck driver sits there idle, in wait, and likely a lot of special labour conditions because 'someone must be on duty' can't have everyone calling in sick.

By 'it works' you mean to say 'the cars get moved quickly' - and yes, having been a daily Golden Gate commuter myself I'm witness to that, but it doesn't mean that it's in any way 'efficient'. It could be dreadfully expensive, to the point that alternatives should be explored (like more bridges). I don't know - but it could be.

Again the example of 'government liquor stores' is a good corollary. 'They work', superficially. The definitely do - you can buy beer and liquor. To an individual buyer without reference it all seems fine.

But absolutely nowhere outside of Ontario/Quebec/Sweden were alcohol distribution is socialized are people pushing for it - and there's considerably more diversity in choice and better price (and frankly this argument over 'corruption' is moot as I don't see a difference between public/private there).

If government controlled liquor distribution were dismantled in On/Qu/Sk within 10 years it would be absolutely impossible to re-enact because there simply are no benefits to it.

The only people who defend are those 'living within the system', like E. Germans believing they have 'great groceries' only to come to tears when the 'Wall Came Down' and they were exposed to the prodigious bounty of regular supermarkets in the West... and those naive, ideological 'chat board' warriors who support socialized systems even when the own experience speaks directly against it.

Nobody on HN who ca buy a decent bottle of wine for $10 is would support their local government 'taking over the system' so that they can literally have 1/4 the selection, and 2x the prices. Nobody. It's a really weird intellectual asymmetry that needs to be studied frankly.

You can buy better wine in a German supermarket, California kiosk than almost anywhere in Ontario. The French 'Walmart' (Carrefour) has literally 10x the selection of anywhere in Ontario, again, for 1/2 the cost.

A colleague of mine grew up in Poland said that before the fall of the regime, they only had '3 kinds of ice cream': Chocolate, Vanilla and 'Pink' because anything else was 'bourgeois'. That we still have people defending this thinking is pretty crazy. These system exist because of incumbency, the power of local guilds and the people most benefiting from scheme (i.e. execs, staff), just like mercantilist royal suitors acquiring market monopolies from a bygone era before Adam Smith.

The "3 kinds of ice cream in Poland" example runs counter to your argument, because it's actually a case where consumers benefit from choice. Consumers do not generally have choice of who tows them, and the OP article hints at the huge inefficiencies that come with private towing, and extent to which consumers aren't benefitting from "free market" competition in this case.

A gang war between two truck companies is obviously very inefficient, but so too is the extreme day-to-day competition for tows. You're right that the government-run scenario would involve idle capacity, but the OP article describes a situation where there is already an especially wasteful and ridiculous form of over-capacity (multiple drivers racing to the scene of a crash, a waste of fuel and labor capacity). The "surveillance system" you mention is already in place in the private towing example, it's just a wildly inefficient version that lacks centralized dispatch.

Government-run liquor stores are also a perfect counter-example to your point--their whole purpose is to not provide the most convenient consumer-friendly option possible, and instead to reduce easy access to liquor and attempt to rein in some of the negative externalities that come with it. For the record, I'm not a fan of that approach, but in many cases it's an example of government succeeding in what it set out to do, not the reverse.

"The "3 kinds of ice cream in Poland" example runs counter to your argument, because it's actually a case where consumers benefit from choice."

Are you seriously saying that '3 kinds of ice cream' represents 'choice' vis-a-vis the the literally hundreds of kinds of ice-cream that people would otherwise be able to choose? Of different flavours, textures, ingredients, sources?

You're taking a very obvious example of 'lack of choice' and trying to spin it as an example of choice?

The government says 'we can only have 1 type of SUV, 1 type of Truck and 1 type of Sedan' - and this would be 'choice'?

No, that's absurd, I can't really think you meant to actually write that.

As for 'towing' - you're mixing my metaphors here.

The 'Golden Gate' towing situation is an example of 'single point of failure' where there probably needs to be intervention, I was merely explaining how that 'special towing service' they have might very well be extremely inefficient. None of that example really folds over into the 'regular market' for towing'.

So yes - you have indicated that 'towing will be competitive' - but that's literally the artifact of the industry that keeps it efficient. When there is 'overcapacity' it adjusts, likewise 'underapacity' - it adjusts.

Those artifacts of the 'invisible hand of the market' are the literal functions that help us do price discovery and understand 'how much people are willing to pay' for stuff.

Any industry can be taken over by the mafia - more likely than not, it depends on the kinds of people involved in the work. You local drug R&D company is probably not going to be related to the Mafia. The 'Auto Shop' is full of the kinds of people who may 'know someone who knows someone' and since it's small business, local, it's more amenable to problems - but so are many industries.

Fighting the Mafia is no excuse to socialize.

At no point has the OP or yourself really given a good reason for why, systematically, towing should be socialized - again - the GG example is a very special case, not a general one.

Finally, yes, 'Government run liquor stores' were enabled in to help control the distribution of alcohol, so there is a historical social externalization there, but that's a very long gone artifact of history. It hasn't been relevant for 50 years.

In reality, there is no difference between distributional impact of social behaviour in Alberta / BC / California (open sales) or Quebec / Ontario / Sweden (Government sales). So it's not an argument, just a historical artefact.

The government is materially 'not succeeding' in 2020 to do anything with respect to social policy whereas the other social cost: expensive alcohol and lack of choice, is a material cost.

There's no reason for them to exist, they exist because of incumbency and the guild of people involve who benefit from it over others.

Things we wouldn't have without government intervention in the free market:

NHS, public libraries, Downton Abbey, the internet, neighborhood fire departments, public roads, national parks, trust busting, regulated utilities, Channel 4's Ali G, Social Security.

Government services are often excellent.

Edit: My Sound of Music parody wasn't appreciated, so I converted my post to prose.

This is a very reasonable position and it adds a lot to the discussion. It's a shame you are suffering reddit-style political downvoting in a community that's supposed to be above this sort of thing. It would be very sad to see a discussion thread about something with massive consequences like socializing an industry without any counterarguments.