Goodmorning Bob! Very interesting site!
What I tried to point out is that one has to be careful not to privatize those services that are an absolute necessity for any person's pursuit of livelihood and success. As an example I pointed out the highway privatization issue; since there are no parallel highway systems that go from the same point A to the same point B - thus giving you a choice in which highway to choose based on the concept you describe below - there would be very little competition and therefore very little incentive to provide a better service. Therefore, the customer is basically a sitting duck for this service, and can then be squeezed by any greedy highway business owner, just like the current government is trying to squeeze the sitting ducks in various areas of service that are essential to one's pursuit of business. If I travel a stretch of highway of 100 miles every day to earn my bread and butter - an essential need for my existence - and these 100 miles are owned by 5 different owners, that means that I would have to change essential systems 5 times during this trip. Since there are no other highways that I can take, I am stuck with the single choice, and any owner can therefore squeeze me to the max, since there is no competition. One stretch of highway leads into another, unless each highway owner builds a highway next to the other one, paving the state over with highways. Each highway trying to compete with the others. Sure, that would work because there is competition and therefore the incentive to build a better highway than the next one for less cost exists. What I was trying to say is that if a system calls for a continuum of sorts, as well as an essential need, then it becomes a dangerous proposition to surrender it to privatization, as greed is a notorious aspect of humanity (as we see in the government, which is run by humans as well.) I understand what you see as the fundament, but I think you have to factor in the aspect of greed and recognize that you cannot force yourself to become a sitting duck for a service that is essential to your own pursuit of what you want to accomplish. If water were to be privatized, we'd all be thirsty as hell. Unless we want to pay the private owner who is making a pile of money on this privatized essential need that nobody can live without. On Apr 19, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Bob Armstrong wrote: > Marinza , welcome to the discussion . > > Blowing my own horn , you'll find some of the essential notions > discussed in some of my Logic of Liberty column in ManhattanLP's > SerfCity.US . > > The difference between the market and forceMonoply sectors is not > in the distribution of greed , but that in the market the only way > to sate your greed is by providing something a lot of people will > pay more for than it costs you to produce . > > > On 4/19/2010 19:17, Marinza wrote: >> >> Hey Chris, >> >> Yes, I agree with that. I find that the US as a whole is quite >> coercive in its social organization. But the problem I see is that >> the capitalist edict has gone to the extreme - there is no social >> compass left in their strategy, it is devoured by greed, and greed >> runs the private businesses. Moreover, not all services can be >> privatized under these conditions. Some services are there by >> necessity, as I pointed out in a prior email, and cannot be >> patronized upon choice. For instance, I do not have a choice BUT >> use the highways for my own livelihood (take truckdrivers for >> example). If our highways were privatized, they'd become the >> domain of unbridled greed (as we see nowadays around the clock), >> stifling others in their own pursuit of free enterprise. It >> becomes a dog eat dog world. >> >> This is what I see. And this is what I am pondering, while sitting >> behind my spinach salad. >> >> Government has become like private businesses that have caved in >> to greed. Government is nothing but a totally greedy sloth that >> slurps up taxpayer's money to stuff its own belly, without any >> regard for the people that put it there. What's to guarantee that >> private business will be any different? We know that competition >> does not always persist - insurance companies all hold hands, they >> know how to uphold revenue by keeping rates similar; gas stations >> do the same - there really is no competition there, one cent >> difference is no competition. And, better yet, there really is no >> differnce between democrats and republicans - they too hold hands >> to uphold the perks. You see the same in the legal field - no >> lawyer is going to upset his opponent lawyer, they're in the same >> business, they're making money off the same conflict. >> >> From an undiluted p.o.v, it's true that private services are >> superior to public ones, but I fear that greed has gotten so deep >> into the tissues of moral society, that the expected dynamics of >> competition and supply and demand are no longer reliable. I think >> we need to be cautious about privatizing services that are a >> social necessity, versus those that are by choice. I have no >> choice over a highway that goes from my house to my job. I am a >> sitting duck, and a greedy owner can therefore charge me up the >> wazoo for travelling over that highway. >> >> As an example, the govt in PA tried to levy tolls on Hwy 80 - a >> major highway that is used a lot by trucks. Tremendous revenues >> obviously. What's to stop a private owner of hwy 80 to levy the >> same tolls or more? Nobody is going to stand in his way. There >> simply is no other highway that can be chosen. I see no >> competition here. >> >> I'm not saying that the Libertarian p.o.v is therefore not valid, >> absolutely not, I'm only bringing up concerns based on trends I >> have observed. And because I believe that we need to address these >> trends if we want a truly free society where we are not being >> coerced into paying for mediocrity, or forced to swallow expensive >> public services that should not be expensive. >> >> We can march forward and postulate Libertarian ideologies and >> expect them to florish, but society may no longer be receptive to >> it, or capable of sustaining it. I see too many people who just >> dont give a damn anymore, who are selfish beyond reproach and >> greedy to the max. Would privatization of public services, >> including such entities as highway systems, thrive on people who >> dont give a damn? I am not sure. It may not be any different than >> what the government we try to get rid of is doing. >> >> Not to offend anyone, I too hope that Libertarianism is possible >> in this country. >> >> -M. >> >> On Apr 19, 2010, at 8:27 PM, Chris Edes wrote: >> >>> Marinza, >>> >>> Perhaps I can shed some light. Fundamentally, libertarianism >>> seeks a society where coercion is never a tool of social >>> organization. Since taxation isn't voluntary, all public >>> services are funded by coercion. Whereas you have a choice to >>> patronize a business, or not do so. Thus, from a moral >>> standpoint, all privately provided services are superior to >>> public services, because you are not forced to pay for them. >>> >>> This is not an argument which relies on quality of service. >>> While private enterprise usually provides better services, >>> because the market anticipates demand and creates supply more >>> efficiently than government, that's ancillary to the point. >>> >>> Chris >>> >>>> Just curious, but why is it that the US is so punitive in >>>> overall social mentality? There are so many prisons, filled to >>>> the rafters; the military outfits are so ubiquitous, not only >>>> here, but also in other territories - whereas there are much >>>> fewer social corner stones such as educational institutions and >>>> elderly care programs. Not to say that I believe in socialist >>>> fundamentalism, but it seems that education and the stimulation >>>> of learning how to *think* would be more useful than the feeding >>>> of the military machine? An educated population would be more >>>> inclined to think for itself and therefore be more Libertarian? >>>> And, when you get old, would you not want a compassionate >>>> environment where you can sit out your Alzheimers collectively >>>> with a few other friendly folk? Or is self-euthanasia the answer? >>>> >>>> Not sure if it fits in the Libertarian philosophy, but I'm only >>>> asking. >>>> >>>> Insurance companies seem to already have become government, as >>>> they dictate what you can and cannot do. They obviously follow >>>> the money trail - their business model has nothing to do with >>>> safety and the best interest of their customers, but with >>>> optimizing a return on the product they sell. Is that bad in >>>> itself, that a privately held organization wants to optimize its >>>> bottom line? Where do Libertarians draw the line? >>>> >>>> How would you propose erecting a competing government? Large >>>> corporations have this type of structure - departments are >>>> competing with each other, driving the tip of the pyramid to be >>>> the most rewarded. From what I've seen, this internal >>>> competition was not particularly conducive to obtaining >>>> excellence. To the contrary, it often resulted in mayhem and >>>> failure. >>>> >>>> Just asking...for the sake of insight. >>>> >>>> -M. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 19, 2010, at 5:24 PM, gary popkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you, Zev, for your thoughtful contribution to this >>>>> discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Even if, as you say, insurance companies become governments, >>>>> the public would at least have access to competing insurance >>>>> companies. Companies with money on the line are likely to >>>>> arrive at better tradeoffs than bureaucrats with nothing to lose. >>>>> >>>>> If we had truly competing governments, government might not be >>>>> as bad as is it. The United States were once competing >>>>> governments. (Before Lincoln, the United States were referred >>>>> to in the plural; after, in the singular.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- On Mon, 4/19/10, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The big problem, however, is how to judge when you are recklessly >>>>> endangering others, and when you are simply taking a rational >>>>> risk. >>>>> Who determines this, and by what standards. In the statist >>>>> model of >>>>> government it's simple: the government decides, and everyone >>>>> has to >>>>> obey its rules, or else. The infallible wisdom of dedicated >>>>> public >>>>> servants who were hired by the wise statesmen elected by the >>>>> majority >>>>> will always hit on the best balance between risk and liberty, >>>>> set the >>>>> most rational standards, and enforce them with scrupulous >>>>> impartiality. >>>>> You can stop laughing now. >>>>> >>>>> The libertarian approach starts with pointing out how absurd >>>>> the statist >>>>> one is. The problem is that it doesn't go much further. What >>>>> *is* the >>>>> solution? *Someone* has to set standards, and there will >>>>> always be >>>>> people unhappy with them, who will have to be forced -- yes, by >>>>> force of >>>>> arms, if necessary -- to abstain from taking what they think is a >>>>> perfectly acceptable risk. In some versions of anarcho- >>>>> capitalism, the >>>>> standards are set by agreement between the insurance companies, >>>>> and >>>>> they then enforce them not only on their own clients but also >>>>> on everyone >>>>> else, for their clients' safety. Nozick points out that this >>>>> turns them >>>>> into a government. >>>>> > > -- > -- Bob Armstrong -- CoSy.com -- 719-337-2733 -- > TURNING THOUGHTS INTO COMPUTATIONS > I reserve the right to post all communications I receive or > generate to CoSy website for further reflection . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
