Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this dirty? If you don't pay for fire protection, not even through taxes, why does anyone owe you incredibly hard & extremely dangerous labor saving your house? Firefighting is not a safe profession. (I certainly prefer publicly funded fire service)
>Why is this dirty? Sabotage and physical fights broke out between fire companies while fires burned. That's a pretty gritty situation. Allowing fire sales gives way to perverse incentives, like the profitability of arson and predatory pricing of fire fighting fees such that certain portion of victims will always have to sell their property at a discount.
But suppose that you have an honorable firefighting department run by an honorable man. Why could he not have set up a private firefighting company instead, doing pro bono work when required? Given the honorable behavior of his company, why would consumers not want to prefer him for insurance than shady competition, which may be cheaper but is also more likely to screw you over when you most need them?
Government-run agencies can be good or bad; private companies can be good or bad. There is no silver bullet and much depends on the prevailing culture. But government can use the threat of force to compel you to pay for their services. If a private company attempts the same, we would call it an organized crime group.