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.
The only way the public sector gets money is through taxation, which is forcefully taking money from people whether they agree to it or not. It's the mafia model. The private sector can only get your money if you decide to give it to them (or by bribing the state to legislate money to them...forcing people to buy their insurance or creating excessive regulations to prevent competition from springing up). I don't see how there's any argument against that fact.
No, it's a model of government used all over the world. Stop your hyperbole.
And that's (the bolded section) the problem with the general conservative viewpoint on this topic. As somewhat of a liberal, I can understand your point of view, and in limited cases perhaps even agree with it, But you're so mired in your version of reality that you can't even see other points of view.
No, it's a model of government used all over the world. Stop your hyperbole.
And that's (the bolded section) the problem with the general conservative viewpoint on this topic. As somewhat of a liberal, I can understand your point of view, and in limited cases perhaps even agree with it, But you're so mired in your version of reality that you can't even see other points of view.
I'm not liberal or conservative, I'm an anarchist. Saying that it's a model used around the world doesn't change the facts of public vs. private sector and how they operate. The state takes by force, and everyone else has to convince people to give their money voluntarily. I'm not just giving an opinion, I'm stating facts, and you haven't disproven any of it.
I'm glad you can understand it to some degree, but it's not hyperbole. If it is, you should be able to explain how I'm exaggerating instead of just stating that I am. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I don't see it in this case.
I try to stay out of political discussions for the most part. But ocasionally I find myself getting caught up in some political debates. And my first go to solution is to privatize. This immediately ends the conversation, or I get called all sorts of idiots.
I find it odd that Americas will agree social security is a disaster, the police force is a disaster, all of our social programs are a disaster. Yet when someone talks about the power of the market, people are automatically scared.
So I ask, why is America so afraid to attempt privatization? Why do we keep looking towards government for solutions? And why do we keep trying the same "solutions" over and over again that has netted very few gains or progress?
Social security is not a disaster. Anyone who tells you that has an agenda they are trying to push.
Privatization is a method the private sector uses to gain guaranteed profits at the expense of the people forced to use the private service at a much higher cost than having the same service provided by government ownership and staffing. Privatizing the prison system is a good example of this mistake. the public pays more than it did so a few investors make a lot of money. In essence privatization is a fraud.
I try to stay out of political discussions for the most part. But ocasionally I find myself getting caught up in some political debates. And my first go to solution is to privatize. This immediately ends the conversation, or I get called all sorts of idiots.
I find it odd that Americas will agree social security is a disaster, the police force is a disaster, all of our social programs are a disaster. Yet when someone talks about the power of the market, people are automatically scared.
So I ask, why is America so afraid to attempt privatization? Why do we keep looking towards government for solutions? And why do we keep trying the same "solutions" over and over again that has netted very few gains or progress?
Some of us have experienced the bad side of privatization through living in European countries. I have lived in both Germany, and UK. The UK National Health System is often cited by supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and especially by those that seek to expand the ACA into a single payer system. The down side of privatization of things like health care is a direct result of the absence of competition. The quality of care declines, wait lists for both routine and emergency services increases, availability for appointments decreases. The NHS is in the red, and has been for decades. MRSA (staph) infections are common place in NHS hospitals, so much so that you actually get used to seeing the warning signs in the lobbies and common warning of active MRSA outbreaks.
01-22-2016, 07:54 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Privatization is a method the private sector uses to gain guaranteed profits at the expense of the people forced to use the private service at a much higher cost than having the same service provided by government ownership and staffing. Privatizing the prison system is a good example of this mistake. the public pays more than it did so a few investors make a lot of money. In essence privatization is a fraud.
Ah yes, private prisons, perhaps the most glaring privatization failure in recent memory. That industry is the poster child for waste, fraud, abuse, and outright greed.
I'm not liberal or conservative, I'm an anarchist. Saying that it's a model used around the world doesn't change the facts of public vs. private sector and how they operate. The state takes by force, and everyone else has to convince people to give their money voluntarily. I'm not just giving an opinion, I'm stating facts, and you haven't disproven any of it.
I'm glad you can understand it to some degree, but it's not hyperbole. If it is, you should be able to explain how I'm exaggerating instead of just stating that I am. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I don't see it in this case.
Why do you think you deserve to live "rent" free on a plot of land that you had no part in creating or securing? Anyone that thinks they don't owe taxes to the govt of the land they live on, is the equivalent of a squatter.
It's like going up to a landlord and telling them that they're robbing you for making you pay them for the ability to live in their upscale highrise w/ elevators and clean hallways and garbage pickup and doormen. When you live in a country, the "rent" is your taxes.
There's no one-size-fits-all solution, it depends on the task you're dealing with.
I for one am not sure I want to embrace the solution for improving law enforcement via "the power of the market". Private prisons do not exactly have a sterling reputation as it is...
Private prisons can only house minimum to medium security inmates. When there is a riot, state agencies must be called in to quell the situation. I've been called in before to do this, it's a mess. Plus the facilities don't often meet American Correctional Association standards. I'm not saying there may be situations where privatization may work, this is definitely not one of them.
Also public transportation, private contractors aren't held to the same standards to hire their drivers as are the government entities. In Denver, many more accidents involving mass transit vehicles are private contractor vehicles rather than RTD union vehicles.
I like using food production and distribution as an example. We have so much food being produced, and so many grocery stores and restaurants selling to people without any central authority forcing anyone to do it! There's no guarantee, so that must mean everyone will starve to death! That's the mentality people have when talking about privatizing and allowing the market to provide a service.
Then you look at countries where a central authority controlled the food supply and look how that turned out...bread lines and starvation.
That's a poor example because food is very close to a perfect market in the US.
When you talk about privatization of government services, you are talking about areas of the economy with highly flawed markets (mostly markets with difficult to monetize values or markets with natural monopolies). As an example, fully privatizing water service would be a disaster; you would have conflicting water rights, an incentive to wildcat, multiple disconnected distribution networks, etc. Or as another example, how do you fully privatize intelligence gathering for national security? Certainly you can outsource (and the federal government does), but if that function were dropped completely and individual citizens had to rely on the free market, there would be some distinct problems.
And we have already been done the road of fully privatized police and fire. We can, of course, "privatize" to a degree, especially outsourcing for small government entities. This really though is not privatization at all but merely contracting. No part of an outsource situation is actually subject to market forces.
Private prisons can only house minimum to medium security inmates. When there is a riot, state agencies must be called in to quell the situation. I've been called in before to do this, it's a mess. Plus the facilities don't often meet American Correctional Association standards. I'm not saying there may be situations where privatization may work, this is definitely not one of them.
Also public transportation, private contractors aren't held to the same standards to hire their drivers as are the government entities. In Denver, many more accidents involving mass transit vehicles are private contractor vehicles rather than RTD union vehicles.
Private contracts with public entities is a disaster. You won't hear and argument with me on this one. I think maybe I put too much emphasis on privatization, and not enough on the free market. You see that's the thing, privatization sucks when it's basically front for a public entity. And that's where the confusion come in. So I propose some very basic guidelines for privatization.
* Competition.
If there is a private organization that does not have to compete with other private organizations. Then it's not really private. Because private would imply that there is a market in some way. If a private entity is the only game in town, that means that a public entity mostly pulls the strings, and all competition has effectively been eliminated (due to 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.
