Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would it be better and more efficient if all government services - hospitals, roads, schools, maybe even the police, courts and prisons - were taken out of the commons and put into the domain of Wall Street and the marketplace? So instead of paying taxes, people either had to take out insurance or just pay things in lump sums as they come along.
So to use a highway, for example, you'd either have to buy "Highway insurance", perhaps as a premium to your car insurance or every major road would just be a toll road that you'd either have to pay every time or could wave your insurance card to the road manager.
All schools would also be privatized and those who could afford to pay more would get the quality education their children deserve. Those with fewer means could pay "school insurance" which would cost a few hundred a month per child and would get them a basic education; people who couldn't afford that could just home school their child to their best abilities with the help of the Internet.
Medical care would largely be how it is now, except programs like Medicare would no longer exist. Poor people with diseases like cancer would have to rely on the generosity of others, either through donations from loved ones or through sites like GoFundMe. Doctors and ERs would have the right to refuse service to those who can't pay, though I imagine it would be more common for them to just bill later and get blood from a stone.
I think "those who could afford to pay more would get the quality education their children deserve" meaning that children of those who can't afford to pay more don't deserve quality education says it all. The number one reason cons want to privatize everything is to screw the poor.
And I'd have to pay 3 to 4 tolls everytime I went to Trader Joe's, depending on if I have to pay just to leave my house
Just based on moral reasons alone, I support privatizing everything. As far as it actually being possible, I think it is, and will happen inevitably at some point.
I saw someone mention that a private organization would replace the government, but if everything is privatized, that would mean that nobody wants a state. Why would anyone in that scenario (a) acknowledge them as the government, or (b) fund them if they don't like what they're doing?
It's funny that someone will say that we need taxation - forcefully taking people's money - in order for the state to function properly, and then say that a private company - whose only source of income is that which is given to them voluntarily - would take over and control everything.
Power comes from money. The motive for a private company is profit. Private interests have no responsibility for the well-being of citizens.
I'd argue that the state only cares about the well-being of its citizens in the same way a farmer cares for their livestock...and also would add that government officials and employees are exactly the same as private ones. Everyone is working for their own self-interest, not just out of the goodness of their hearts.
I'd rather pay someone voluntarily to do a job than have someone take my money by force, not negotiate the price, and use it in ways I likely don't approve of. If there was a completely voluntary version of the state, I'd be much more supportive of it...although it would just be a big non-profit organization and not a state anymore.
Would it be better and more efficient if all government services - hospitals, roads, schools, maybe even the police, courts and prisons - were taken out of the commons and put into the domain of Wall Street and the marketplace? So instead of paying taxes, people either had to take out insurance or just pay things in lump sums as they come along.
Let us dissect your question shall we.
First, if the question is, "Would privatizing government services be more EFFICIENT?", I think the answer is "Maybe?". If you ask, "Would privatizing government services be BETTER?", well, that depends on what you mean by better.
Let me just state very clearly, the country we live in today could not exist like it is today if everything was privatized. The government simply subsidizes and regulates so many industries, most of them would utterly collapse without government intervention.
Without the Federal Reserve, banking in this country would change completely. Without the "lender of last resort", many individuals might lose confidence in the banks, especially if the banks tried to over-leverage through any sort of "fractional-reserve" lending(making people less likely to save, especially in large amounts). And without the availability of "finance capital" from the Federal Reserve banking system, Wall-Street would be a shell of its current self. For that matter, interest rates would tend to be much higher, inflation would effectively disappear. But, without capital, most large corporations would probably leave this country. They benefit greatly from their easy access to nearly unlimited low-interest capital to make investments both here and abroad. And without the SEC and other regulatory controls on Wall Street, you would probably see a huge reduction in the people willing to "gamble their money" in the stock-market.
In education, the number of people going to college would shrink drastically, and thus there would be far fewer colleges. That doesn't mean people would be less-educated. Rather, without government enforcing things like "licensing" through only "government accredited colleges". People would tend to educate themselves in a variety of alternative ways(instead of racking up huge school debt). There would most likely be a private accreditation organization, but there might be several different ones, each with different requirements. And some employers in certain fields which currently require someone to have a degree or a certification, may no longer require them. And instead either begin offering more "apprenticeship" programs, or some sort of "internal" evaluation of a person's knowledge/skills. Why? As it stands, outside of certain technical degrees, once you are hired your employer basically tells you to forget everything you learned, and then retrains you. College is less about teaching people useful skills, as much as just being a sorting machine to find out who is dedicated and trainable.
And for primary schools, a lot more people would homeschool. Which means a lot more women would probably opt not to work, and instead be "stay-at-home moms"(which would probably lead to more marriage and less divorce). Religious schools would expand drastically, and would offer significant price reductions to regular congregants. Meaning that a lot more people would end up going to church. Increasing the overall religiosity of this country. These religious schools, and the homeschoolers, would provide educations which could vary drastically. Not simply in quality, but in what is taught, especially in regards to things like "History", "Government", and other things which shape a child's opinion about the people around him and his country.
That system would tend to lead to social segregation of similar groups away from the rest of society. And would tend to undermine any feelings of nationalism/unity among the various groups in the country.
As for roads, the entire system would have to fundamentally change, and many roads could no longer be economically sustainable. Since roads would have to be paid for through fees, and since it would be impractical to enforce fees in most situations except for "long-distance roads"(IE highways) and bridges. Then you would have a "three-tier" road system. You would end up with "neighborhood roads", which would almost universally be "closed-access"(IE dead-ends or gated, to prevent "through-traffic"). You would have "local business roads". Which would be held-in-common by a group of businesses, who don't mind paying for access roads to local neighborhoods in some sort of business association, as a business investment(for reference, think of how many businesses already build massive parking lots with what amounts to internal streets across large areas, as well as apartment complexes, trailer parks, industrial complexes, etc). And the third type of road, would be "long-distance roads", which would be toll roads. Which would probably be more convenient(and cheaper) than many toll roads today, but still an annoyance for most people.
As for neighborhood roads and business roads. Their "quality" would vary significantly. Many neighborhood roads, even in cities, would be of rather low quality(gravel or dirt or just ill-maintained asphalt roads in some poorer areas, think "rural roads"), and very well-maintained concrete roads in other areas.
The inconvenience and "upfront" costs of the toll roads would tend to discourage their use, and make businesses less likely to build along them, except at "periodic access points". This would mean that in most cases, people would only drive along neighborhood streets to their local business roads. This would tend to cause more "localism" in business and behavior. People would shop close-by, eat close-by, work close-by, and live close-by their family and friends. With this localism, there would be less of a need to even own a car. And with the abolition of "building codes", you would see far more small houses and multi-family dwellings, especially in the poorer areas. And without zoning laws, you would end up with a lot more "combined residential and business" areas(instead of business areas being segregated from residential areas). Basically, even the small towns would look a lot more like "New York City", with businesses on the bottom floor, and people living above, or at the very least close-by.
Without government effectively creating a road transportation monopoly through their subsidization. You would see a huge expansion of road alternatives, especially railroads/trains. In fact, most freight currently moved by trucks would probably switch over to railroads. Rail would also become far cheaper than it is today, because the railroads have effectively created a monopoly between a few companies(at least for long-haul freight) through government regulations(ICC and the FRA). Currently, the cost of building a railroad is through the roof, because its nearly impossible to get access to any "right of way's", and then you have to jump through a million bureaucratic hoops. But without government standing in the way, and with more localism, you would see a huge expansion of new "short-line" railroads. Many of them would be offering local transportation(IE mass transit, similar to the early days of New York City when tons of small transportation companies were NYC's mass transit system).
With this localism, and without the roads being littered with as many semi-trucks and other large vehicles. You would probably see people driving much smaller vehicles. Far more motorcycles, far more bicycles, and walking.
With that said, I don't think you could ever have a city of any real size with privatized roads. You could really only have a web of decentralized, somewhat isolated small towns, located on toll road exits and "railroad stops". For a point-of-reference, Philadelphia in 1776 had a population of about 40,000. It would be difficult to have a population much larger without government roads/utilities/police/etc. Which means large cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, would probably largely empty out(and what was left would become highly segregated). And large entertainment venues, like sports stadiums, civic centers, etc, would probably shut down. It is incredibly unlikely for instance, to see a college or professional football stadium being able to house the ~60,000-100,000 people they do now. It would just be too difficult and too costly to have anything like that, since the team would have to pay for the stadium and for the infrastructure mostly out of their own pockets(they currently don't really pay for either).
As for the police, for the most part, each town would have a difficult time having more than one police force. To the extent that there is "competition", it would mostly be between different towns, not so much within towns. But because laws and enforcement could vary so drastically between relatively short distances, most people would probably avoid traveling very far from home. Though the toll roads and railroads would probably have their own police force. Which means as long as you didn't wander far from those corridors, there would be some level of conformity. Though, since most people will know each other, population densities will tend to be much lower, and there would tend to be less social and economic diversity, and thus less crime.
Welfare would also tend to be more local. Provided by families, communities, churches, and to a lesser extent by private charities. The return of people to church, and because churches would become more often used for its education and welfare benefits, this would tend to further segregate people by religious affiliation. Most cities would probably become completely dominated/controlled by a single religion/ethnic group. With only small, relatively isolated groups of "others" in major trade areas(especially along rivers, or in major ocean ports).
Without things like the FDA, people might lose a bit of confidence in restaurants. Meaning people would probably eat a lot more meals at home. With greater religiosity and localism, you would probably see far more "potlucks", and other "community gatherings". Let alone the establishment of a lot of things akin to the old "pubs"(public houses/community meeting areas with drinks and food). And with this localism, and also with a higher difficulty of borrowing money, and at higher interest rates, people would tend to move around less often. In most cases, you would probably live in the same town your whole life.
It is simply impossible to privatize the military. A country cannot remain a country without a national military run by the government, it would simply break apart. That isn't to say that you can't have a defensive force without government. But simply that the defensive force couldn't be very powerful, and would be prone to instability/disunity. You simply cannot have a private military with supercarriers, stealth bombers, and nuclear missiles. Though what military did remain, would tend to only be a defensive force, never used aggressively, since there would be no real need to secure and compete for foreign resources/markets.
The only clearly bright spot in all these changes, would be the environment. And that is only because you would see such a drastic reduction in oil consumption(and probably most other consumption as well).
The problem of course, is that you would effectively transform America from a nation of big-cities, corporations, industry, and gleaming skyscrapers. To a nation divided effectively into a bunch of "tribes". With much much smaller-scale industry.
Basically, what needs to be understood is that, big-business requires big-government. Big-banks require big-government. Big-industry requires big-government. Big-cities require big-government. You cannot have big anything without big-government.
It is why Alexander Hamilton favored the heavy concentration of power in a central body of government. He knew that without it, the country would fall apart(just like it did under the Articles of Confederation). This body needs the power to solve all differences of opinion, and enforce its decisions. New York City simply cannot exist as a libertarian or anarchist paradise. The only way New York City can exist, is with a police officer on every corner, and high taxes and lots of public(not for profit) services.
With all that said, I would much rather the Thomas Jefferson decentralized, small-scale industry, and agricultural system, in comparison to our current system.
He wrote, "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue... Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators(farmers) is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman(farmer), for their subsistence, depend for it on the casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Basically he is saying, throughout all time, the refuge of morals has always been in those who cultivate the Earth. People who depend on others tend to be easily controlled, corrupted, and bribed. And generally tend to be lacking in morals.
So what would you prefer?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-06-2015 at 04:39 AM..
I think "those who could afford to pay more would get the quality education their children deserve" meaning that children of those who can't afford to pay more don't deserve quality education says it all. The number one reason cons want to privatize everything is to screw the poor.
Yeah I was saying that with a fair dose of sarcasm/venom of course.
First, if the question is, "Would privatizing government services be more EFFICIENT?", I think the answer is "Maybe?". If you ask, "Would privatizing government services be BETTER?", well, that depends on what you mean by better.
Let me just state very clearly, the country we live in today could not exist like it is today if everything was privatized. The government simply subsidizes and regulates so many industries, most of them would utterly collapse without government intervention.
Without the Federal Reserve, banking in this country would change completely. Without the "lender of last resort", many individuals might lose confidence in the banks, especially if the banks tried to over-leverage through any sort of "fractional-reserve" lending(making people less likely to save, especially in large amounts). And without the availability of "finance capital" from the Federal Reserve banking system, Wall-Street would be a shell of its current self. For that matter, interest rates would tend to be much higher, inflation would effectively disappear. But, without capital, most large corporations would probably leave this country. They benefit greatly from their easy access to nearly unlimited low-interest capital to make investments both here and abroad. And without the SEC and other regulatory controls on Wall Street, you would probably see a huge reduction in the people willing to "gamble their money" in the stock-market.
In education, the number of people going to college would shrink drastically, and thus there would be far fewer colleges. That doesn't mean people would be less-educated. Rather, without government enforcing things like "licensing" through only "government accredited colleges". People would tend to educate themselves in a variety of alternative ways(instead of racking up huge school debt). There would most likely be a private accreditation organization, but there might be several different ones, each with different requirements. And some employers in certain fields which currently require someone to have a degree or a certification, may no longer require them. And instead either begin offering more "apprenticeship" programs, or some sort of "internal" evaluation of a person's knowledge/skills. Why? As it stands, outside of certain technical degrees, once you are hired your employer basically tells you to forget everything you learned, and then retrains you. College is less about teaching people useful skills, as much as just being a sorting machine to find out who is dedicated and trainable.
And for primary schools, a lot more people would homeschool. Which means a lot more women would probably opt not to work, and instead be "stay-at-home moms"(which would probably lead to more marriage and less divorce). Religious schools would expand drastically, and would offer significant price reductions to regular congregants. Meaning that a lot more people would end up going to church. Increasing the overall religiosity of this country. These religious schools, and the homeschoolers, would provide educations which could vary drastically. Not simply in quality, but in what is taught, especially in regards to things like "History", "Government", and other things which shape a child's opinion about the people around him and his country.
That system would tend to lead to social segregation of similar groups away from the rest of society. And would tend to undermine any feelings of nationalism/unity among the various groups in the country.
As for roads, the entire system would have to fundamentally change, and many roads could no longer be economically sustainable. Since roads would have to be paid for through fees, and since it would be impractical to enforce fees in most situations except for "long-distance roads"(IE highways) and bridges. Then you would have a "three-tier" road system. You would end up with "neighborhood roads", which would almost universally be "closed-access"(IE dead-ends or gated, to prevent "through-traffic"). You would have "local business roads". Which would be held-in-common by a group of businesses, who don't mind paying for access roads to local neighborhoods in some sort of business association, as a business investment(for reference, think of how many businesses already build massive parking lots with what amounts to internal streets across large areas, as well as apartment complexes, trailer parks, industrial complexes, etc). And the third type of road, would be "long-distance roads", which would be toll roads. Which would probably be more convenient(and cheaper) than many toll roads today, but still an annoyance for most people.
As for neighborhood roads and business roads. Their "quality" would vary significantly. Many neighborhood roads, even in cities, would be of rather low quality(gravel or dirt or just ill-maintained asphalt roads in some poorer areas, think "rural roads"), and very well-maintained concrete roads in other areas.
The inconvenience and "upfront" costs of the toll roads would tend to discourage their use, and make businesses less likely to build along them, except at "periodic access points". This would mean that in most cases, people would only drive along neighborhood streets to their local business roads. This would tend to cause more "localism" in business and behavior. People would shop close-by, eat close-by, work close-by, and live close-by their family and friends. With this localism, there would be less of a need to even own a car. And with the abolition of "building codes", you would see far more small houses and multi-family dwellings, especially in the poorer areas. And without zoning laws, you would end up with a lot more "combined residential and business" areas(instead of business areas being segregated from residential areas). Basically, even the small towns would look a lot more like "New York City", with businesses on the bottom floor, and people living above, or at the very least close-by.
Without government effectively creating a road transportation monopoly through their subsidization. You would see a huge expansion of road alternatives, especially railroads/trains. In fact, most freight currently moved by trucks would probably switch over to railroads. Rail would also become far cheaper than it is today, because the railroads have effectively created a monopoly between a few companies(at least for long-haul freight) through government regulations(ICC and the FRA). Currently, the cost of building a railroad is through the roof, because its nearly impossible to get access to any "right of way's", and then you have to jump through a million bureaucratic hoops. But without government standing in the way, and with more localism, you would see a huge expansion of new "short-line" railroads. Many of them would be offering local transportation(IE mass transit, similar to the early days of New York City when tons of small transportation companies were NYC's mass transit system).
With this localism, and without the roads being littered with as many semi-trucks and other large vehicles. You would probably see people driving much smaller vehicles. Far more motorcycles, far more bicycles, and walking.
With that said, I don't think you could ever have a city of any real size with privatized roads. You could really only have a web of decentralized, somewhat isolated small towns, located on toll road exits and "railroad stops". For a point-of-reference, Philadelphia in 1776 had a population of about 40,000. It would be difficult to have a population much larger without government roads/utilities/police/etc. Which means large cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, would probably largely empty out(and what was left would become highly segregated). And large entertainment venues, like sports stadiums, civic centers, etc, would probably shut down. It is incredibly unlikely for instance, to see a college or professional football stadium being able to house the ~60,000-100,000 people they do now. It would just be too difficult and too costly to have anything like that, since the team would have to pay for the stadium and for the infrastructure mostly out of their own pockets(they currently don't really pay for either).
As for the police, for the most part, each town would have a difficult time having more than one police force. To the extent that there is "competition", it would mostly be between different towns, not so much within towns. But because laws and enforcement could vary so drastically between relatively short distances, most people would probably avoid traveling very far from home. Though the toll roads and railroads would probably have their own police force. Which means as long as you didn't wander far from those corridors, there would be some level of conformity. Though, since most people will know each other, population densities will tend to be much lower, and there would tend to be less social and economic diversity, and thus less crime.
Welfare would also tend to be more local. Provided by families, communities, churches, and to a lesser extent by private charities. The return of people to church, and because churches would become more often used for its education and welfare benefits, this would tend to further segregate people by religious affiliation. Most cities would probably become completely dominated/controlled by a single religion/ethnic group. With only small, relatively isolated groups of "others" in major trade areas(especially along rivers, or in major ocean ports).
Without things like the FDA, people might lose a bit of confidence in restaurants. Meaning people would probably eat a lot more meals at home. With greater religiosity and localism, you would probably see far more "potlucks", and other "community gatherings". Let alone the establishment of a lot of things akin to the old "pubs"(public houses/community meeting areas with drinks and food). And with this localism, and also with a higher difficulty of borrowing money, and at higher interest rates, people would tend to move around less often. In most cases, you would probably live in the same town your whole life.
It is simply impossible to privatize the military. A country cannot remain a country without a national military run by the government, it would simply break apart. That isn't to say that you can't have a defensive force without government. But simply that the defensive force couldn't be very powerful, and would be prone to instability/disunity. You simply cannot have a private military with supercarriers, stealth bombers, and nuclear missiles. Though what military did remain, would tend to only be a defensive force, never used aggressively, since there would be no real need to secure and compete for foreign resources/markets.
The only clearly bright spot in all these changes, would be the environment. And that is only because you would see such a drastic reduction in oil consumption(and probably most other consumption as well).
The problem of course, is that you would effectively transform America from a nation of big-cities, corporations, industry, and gleaming skyscrapers. To a nation divided effectively into a bunch of "tribes". With much much smaller-scale industry.
Basically, what needs to be understood is that, big-business requires big-government. Big-banks require big-government. Big-industry requires big-government. Big-cities require big-government. You cannot have big anything without big-government.
It is why Alexander Hamilton favored the heavy concentration of power in a central body of government. He knew that without it, the country would fall apart(just like it did under the Articles of Confederation). This body needs the power to solve all differences of opinion, and enforce its decisions. New York City simply cannot exist as a libertarian or anarchist paradise. The only way New York City can exist, is with a police officer on every corner, and high taxes and lots of public(not for profit) services.
With all that said, I would much rather the Thomas Jefferson decentralized, small-scale industry, and agricultural system, in comparison to our current system.
He wrote, "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue... Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators(farmers) is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman(farmer), for their subsistence, depend for it on the casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Basically he is saying, throughout all time, the refuge of morals has always been in those who cultivate the Earth. People who depend on others tend to be easily controlled, corrupted, and bribed. And generally tend to be lacking in morals.
No. I don't like privatization of specific duties - like trash service and water service. I feel those should be left with local governments.
Contrary to what many believe, in my experience, it is cheaper for the government to run certain population benefitting outlets. Water in particular as the private businesses always will charge some additional fee for usage of the city/muncipal/state pipes that wasn't charged before.
I also don't like it when they break up utility monoplolies. I remember in GA when gas service was taken away from Atlanta Gas Light and given to "suppliers" instead. Gas bills went up because Atlanta Gas Light owned all the gas lines and still had to service them so every month, even if I didn't use any gas, I would get charged $40 for a fee. When I had Atlanta Gas Light, I didn't have to pay that fee and the bills were lower.
I honestly don't understand why so many, especially conservative people trust businesses more than government. Both have their issues, but at least government is more accountable to people and the people as a whole, not a small board of folks out for profit, have control of the organization. It is easier to put pressure on a governmental utility versus a privately held one.
Even thought it may not seem like it, serving the people is actually the job of the government. As I stated earlier, it is easier to incite change on a government organization than a private one.
And just FYI, I am a consultant and have worked for government agencies and privately held companies that were government contractors. In most places, the government did/does just as good of a job as the private company. Also government usually can get better pricing and save money due to so many companies willing to give 30-40% discounts to cooperative purchasing networks that governments utilize.
The place where government falters is wages and benefits. Government pays more in a lot of industries/locations than private and they provide better benefits usually always along with pensions. Those are super expensive to do and is the reason why many governments just go ahead and privatize certain jobs, especially trash service.
Would you be in favor of completing privatizing everything?
no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-apple-less
I wouldn't myself. But it seems like a lot of people advocate exactly that! Especially when they call the US a nanny state even though government is so small here.
you really think we have too little government?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you be in favor of completing privatizing everything?
