Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What services should be privatized?

stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 8:27:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 8:22:04 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do we determine what should be publicly funded, or privately funded?

healthcare should be private only.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:01:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Because cost. Healthcare is an industry contained enough to be nationalized by the government. But the Food industry is simply to large, and too expansive for nationalization to occur. So in it's place, there's the welfare system.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:11:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Everything should be privatized. When the sole factor of any interaction is self-interest, everything will conform to the consumer. As in, it's in the self-interest of the producer to make sure the consumer is happy with the product or service, and is able to afford it in the future.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:15:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
It's pretty fun how many people think that when something costs a lot and is necessary to most humans, that it should be government funded.

Probably would take me 1 paragraph to make an argument that would dismantle all of the applications to the previous argument.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:25:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:11:11 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Everything should be privatized. When the sole factor of any interaction is self-interest, everything will conform to the consumer. As in, it's in the self-interest of the producer to make sure the consumer is happy with the product or service, and is able to afford it in the future.

Everything? What about public schools, prisons, the military?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:26:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 8:22:04 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do we determine what should be publicly funded, or privately funded?

All of it should be privately funded
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:28:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?

No... There is a tremendous diversity and social attachment to all things food. What I am saying is, providing subsidy to agriculture production (not a huge fan of how it works now, but...) is fine by me.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:29:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:28:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?

No... There is a tremendous diversity and social attachment to all things food. What I am saying is, providing subsidy to agriculture production (not a huge fan of how it works now, but...) is fine by me.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant in general. What services should be publicly funded, and privately funded in your opinion?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:31:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:26:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:22:04 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do we determine what should be publicly funded, or privately funded?

All of it should be privately funded

so 0% taxes? What about our roads?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:32:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?

Everything except for the police force, roads, firefighters, court systems, and the military should be privatized.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:32:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:29:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:28:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?

No... There is a tremendous diversity and social attachment to all things food. What I am saying is, providing subsidy to agriculture production (not a huge fan of how it works now, but...) is fine by me.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant in general. What services should be publicly funded, and privately funded in your opinion?

I see... Well what do I want to see privatized? I'm not sure I can think of any I would like to see.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:36:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:32:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:29:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:28:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?

No... There is a tremendous diversity and social attachment to all things food. What I am saying is, providing subsidy to agriculture production (not a huge fan of how it works now, but...) is fine by me.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant in general. What services should be publicly funded, and privately funded in your opinion?

I see... Well what do I want to see privatized? I'm not sure I can think of any I would like to see.

What about current stuff? What should stay privatized? Or do you just want everything to be publicly owned?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:38:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:36:01 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:32:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:29:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:28:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?

No... There is a tremendous diversity and social attachment to all things food. What I am saying is, providing subsidy to agriculture production (not a huge fan of how it works now, but...) is fine by me.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant in general. What services should be publicly funded, and privately funded in your opinion?

I see... Well what do I want to see privatized? I'm not sure I can think of any I would like to see.

What about current stuff? What should stay privatized? Or do you just want everything to be publicly owned?

About the only thing I would make a case for adding as a public utility is internet access. I think we went the wrong direction with this. Problem was the "last mile" had to be covered with dial-up and now cable etc. We had no reason to have private company's in this area to start with, but are stuck with them now.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:46:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:38:38 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:36:01 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:32:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:29:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:28:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?

No... There is a tremendous diversity and social attachment to all things food. What I am saying is, providing subsidy to agriculture production (not a huge fan of how it works now, but...) is fine by me.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant in general. What services should be publicly funded, and privately funded in your opinion?

I see... Well what do I want to see privatized? I'm not sure I can think of any I would like to see.

What about current stuff? What should stay privatized? Or do you just want everything to be publicly owned?

About the only thing I would make a case for adding as a public utility is internet access. I think we went the wrong direction with this. Problem was the "last mile" had to be covered with dial-up and now cable etc. We had no reason to have private company's in this area to start with, but are stuck with them now.

You support giving free handout internet?! What are you, a communist >:( http://f.tqn.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:47:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:46:03 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:38:38 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:36:01 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:32:21 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:29:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:28:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:27 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:12:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Food production is highly subsidized. There is a very good argument for a nation feeding itself (substance) FIRST.

So what in your opinion should be, and shouldn't be privatized?

No... There is a tremendous diversity and social attachment to all things food. What I am saying is, providing subsidy to agriculture production (not a huge fan of how it works now, but...) is fine by me.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant in general. What services should be publicly funded, and privately funded in your opinion?

I see... Well what do I want to see privatized? I'm not sure I can think of any I would like to see.

What about current stuff? What should stay privatized? Or do you just want everything to be publicly owned?

About the only thing I would make a case for adding as a public utility is internet access. I think we went the wrong direction with this. Problem was the "last mile" had to be covered with dial-up and now cable etc. We had no reason to have private company's in this area to start with, but are stuck with them now.

You support giving free handout internet?! What are you, a communist >:( http://f.tqn.com...

Yes yes... A am the commie.

There are some shitty stats I will lookup, but the digital divide is very real, and getting worse really.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:49:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:01:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:36:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:33:05 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
By necessity and cost. Is the service really necessary to the overall population? For example, general healthcare is a necessity no matter what your socio-economic background is. SO privatisation of that service would be problematic. Other services however, like cosmetics or plastic surgery are not necessary to most people. As a result, this service would be prone to privatization.

Secondly, cost. If you've determined that the chosen service is not necessary. Next would be to tell whether or not privatization would cost more than it would produce.

For example, Peter Lougheed (former premier of Alberta) argued that by privatizing Liquor services it would provide more choice, longer hours and an overall more active market if Liqour services were privatised. This was later proven to be wrong, as stores closed at around the same time (6-7 PM) as national stores did, but the reasoning behind privatization of that service could be understood at the time. Alberta hence became one of the few provinces in Canada to privatize liqour services.

Just a question that got me thinking about stuff. Food is also required for a human being , but why isn't it government funded? Why do we pay for it out of our pockets?

Because cost. Healthcare is an industry contained enough to be nationalized by the government. But the Food industry is simply to large, and too expansive for nationalization to occur. So in it's place, there's the welfare system.

The healthcare system should be only private, but with a discounted rate for as needed basis.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:53:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:31:19 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:22:04 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do we determine what should be publicly funded, or privately funded?

All of it should be privately funded

so 0% taxes? What about our roads?

I mean, private corporations already build the roads, so maybe a monthly fee or something to ride on them, from a collective of companies
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:35:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 9:53:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:31:19 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:22:04 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do we determine what should be publicly funded, or privately funded?

All of it should be privately funded

so 0% taxes? What about our roads?

I mean, private corporations already build the roads, so maybe a monthly fee or something to ride on them, from a collective of companies

I'm somewhat fine with public roads, but considering how poorly built and managed they are, I would prefer it to become privatized.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:36:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Healthcare and Education should most definitely stay privatized, and there shouldn't be any subsidies offered to either the people or the corporations.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:39:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 11:13:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
As few as possible
Neoliberalism is a failure

Neo-Liberalism was a failure because it was poorly applied. Classical liberalism is great, and Libertarianism is perfect. Debate me on it if you'd like.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:39:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
There's always that one socialist moron that will say that so many things should be public because some few lazy poor people can't afford it. SMH.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:44:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 1:35:54 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:53:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:31:19 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:22:04 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do we determine what should be publicly funded, or privately funded?

All of it should be privately funded

so 0% taxes? What about our roads?

I mean, private corporations already build the roads, so maybe a monthly fee or something to ride on them, from a collective of companies

I'm somewhat fine with public roads, but considering how poorly built and managed they are, I would prefer it to become privatized.

It is privatized to a certain extent. It's built by private companies, just the government picks the lowest bidder, assuring really bad quality
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:44:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 1:36:43 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Healthcare and Education should most definitely stay privatized, and there shouldn't be any subsidies offered to either the people or the corporations.

public healthcare is simply to costly and is abused. Plus it makes it so taxes are rased to help keep it.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:45:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 1:44:18 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/30/2015 1:35:54 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:53:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:31:19 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 12/29/2015 9:26:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/29/2015 8:22:04 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
How do we determine what should be publicly funded, or privately funded?

All of it should be privately funded

so 0% taxes? What about our roads?

I mean, private corporations already build the roads, so maybe a monthly fee or something to ride on them, from a collective of companies

I'm somewhat fine with public roads, but considering how poorly built and managed they are, I would prefer it to become privatized.

It is privatized to a certain extent. It's built by private companies, just the government picks the lowest bidder, assuring really bad quality

Oh yes, remember that time government did something of high quality?

I don't either.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.