posted by Angus Ontario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Phaedrus....
Yes - it makes perfect sense that in many arenas the private sector will be more efficient than the public sector . . . but surely you must agree that there are some areas in which the public sector can do a better job?
I was just reading an article today about this consortium of private hospitals run by Senate majority leader Bill Frist and how that company demands a minimum 20% profit margin of each hospital in the organization. Now if the goal of a hospital is streamlined operation and profit then I agree that the private sector does a good job. But if the goal is to deliver quality health care then it seems to me that by re-investing that 20% back in to health care delivery a not-for-profit (i.e. public) hospital would in theory be an improvement....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a difference between "not for profit" and "public sector." It is a common error to assume that just because someone does not want his money stolen and spent on things he otherwise would not have spent it, that that person is "above" charity. Many things can be quite well managed on a collective basis, on a non-profit basis, even in the capacity of a communistic endeavour,
when those involved have a vested interest in its success. There's nothing in the world wrong with such enterprises and in fact I wish them all the success they can muster. It is when it comes down to me being forced to support such things against my will that my ire is raised, and despite its relatively noble intentions that is the bottom line of virtually all government everywhere in the modern world: forcing one group to do things they ordinarily would not, for the benefit of others.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Phaedrus have you ever read John Rawls? Don't bother reading him if you haven't guy cause I bet he'll make your blood boil....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've read Rawls' work
A Theory of Justice. Unlike many people all over the political spectrum I believe that there is value to be gleaned from most truly thoughtful work; for example one person I admire greatly that might suprise some people trying to pin me down to an -ism is early communist Peter Krotopkin, especially his short work "On Law and Authority." While Krotopkin was hopelessly, utterly off the mark with regards to capitlaism (not unlike our friend eek, Krotopkin confused state favouring of business with capitalism) his insights as to the nature and effects of the state were very cunning.
That said, Rawls is a tool and if you consider
A Thoery of Justice to be any guideline on political economy, you too are an hopeless tool.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read Friedrich Hayek's
The Road to Serfdom or Ludwig von Mises'
Human Action? Both are excellent and highly-recommended.
posted by D2bets
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It's very ambiguous. So is "best possible result". Increasing income i not the resposiblity of government, but thr framework that a government puts in place will necessarily benefit some more than others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're getting into far deeper concepts than I meant by my comment, which is why (I think) you are perceiving an ambiguity which is not there. What I mean is, simply put, if you are a potato farmer, you have a vested interest in getting the most and best potatos back out of the earth for your time, capital and labour as you possibly can. Nothing more thoughtful than that.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would simply argue that you want to put a framework in place that will allow the greaest number of people to live at or above a reasonable standard of living, even at the exepnse of some greater real amount of economic activity. History has taught that a huge and increasing disparity between the haves and the have-nots is not good for the perpetustion of the siciety. If government can set a framework to help ensure that the gap doesn't widen, then society will continue to prosper in the long-run. There is always a balance between short and long-term thinking.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are correct here, to an extent. Huge and increasing disparity does lead to social turmoil. But a) social turmoil is not necessarily a bad thing, unless you have a vested interest in preserving the status quo (the lazy, or politicians, or semi-skilled lower-middle class with no prospects ... virtually every one else benefits from a state of social chaos. The only real victims in a state of all but total anarchic chaos would the the very young and the very old, where said victims did not have someone to protect and take care of them. I shed a tear, but a very very small one, and just one) and b) for an example of what happens when the state runs out of wiggle room to "tweak" social equality, look no further than the former U.S.S.R.
posted by SENDITIN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
haedrus,
There were some private functions such as the self regulation by the accounting industry that have turned out to be a complete failure and cost people a lot of money. I think in the regulatory arena the private sector has failed dismally. But I do concur that in general the private sector is a zillion times more efficient than the government.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, far from being emblematic of the market, "self-regulatory" agencies such as the CPA people, the Bar Associations, the AMA
et al. are little more than lobbying groups which stifle competition and curry favour among politicans. An example of the superior efficiency of the market over such modern-day guilds is the brutal beating that accounting firms have taken since the first fractures in that industry's credibility appeared a few years ago.
To cite the follies of Arthur Andersen as an example of the failure of private markets is like saying that Enron is an example of the failure of deregulated energy. There is no deregulated energy, and has not been for well over a century -- and there is no private market for CPA's, by the very definition of a CPA.
Every single thing a CPA will ever learn from Economics 101 to the day he gets his gold Seiko can be fit onto one CD-ROM. Is it any wonder that that industry appears to be breaking down while trying to maintain its old ways?
posted by D2bets:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So if the parent wanted a segregated, racist, bigoted curriculum for their child that would be OK?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's wrong with people being segregationists, racists or bigots?
posted by WildBill
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The problem with Libertarian party is that it just goes too far. After all why have an election or for that matter any real government if you believe in their views. I agree greatly with many of their stands, they just have to accept some realities. First of all the people are essentially not interested as a whole. Think about it, do you think many people would go to the polls to vote for someone that essentially said I am not going to do a damn thing for you? Politicians definitely spin and overpromise, but this you are talking about is the 180 degree move.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is exactly right WildBill. No one is ever in a million years going to elect a Libertarian candidate, because no one wants the gravy train to come to its final stop in his own lifetime. But that's okay -- don't care too greatly for the party myself, although the strike me on the whole as the least-damaging option if one has to pick. However, whether or not we vote it in, the end of the current system of politics and welfare statism (both in terms of domestic welfare and international-warfare-as-self-righteous-hypocritical-welfare-via-dicta) will come to an end. The only variable is, will ours or the next generation change it, or will it be supported up to the bitter collapse?
Phaedrus
