Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Privatization

threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 3:35:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sketch featuring Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry. A man returns from holiday to find his local police station has undergone some serious changes. Clip from BBC comedy show A Bit of Fry & Laurie.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 3:42:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I can't hear it really. Bad speakers on this computer.

I don't believe law enforement should be privatised. It only seems compatible with anarchy.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 3:47:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 3:42:49 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I can't hear it really. Bad speakers on this computer.

I don't believe law enforement should be privatised. It only seems compatible with anarchy.

What else do you believe should be socialized?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 3:50:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 3:47:08 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
At 7/5/2009 3:42:49 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I can't hear it really. Bad speakers on this computer.

I don't believe law enforement should be privatised. It only seems compatible with anarchy.

What else do you believe should be socialized?

Publicized is the word.

A court system and defense. Militias don't work anymore.

Currency I'm iffy on right now.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 4:01:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 3:56:29 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Publicized is the word.
Socialized works as well. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Currency I'm iffy on right now.
How do you suppose that would work?

Copy and Paste. I'm lazy.

http://www.debate.org...

Currency is a monopoly when government controls it, and when the government abuses it, everyone suffers EVEN MORE than when a private monopoly overprices something like software. People don't need software as much as they need currency.

Second, if a private company tries to overmint its currency (which would have to be something besides paper to have value), then it will lose to its competitors. If people believe that a currency might inflate, then they'll trade to another.

Third, because currency will have real value (silver coins, etc.), it will be much less likely to inflate, as their value will be determined by something other than demand for money.

Government could fine companies that they find to have falsified the weight of their coins, etc., as is done with other companies of different industries.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 4:11:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You don't think it would be a hassle trying keep track of all your different currencies? Some stores might not allow certain currencies. Seems like it would just complicate and slow trade down to me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 5:45:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 4:11:37 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
You don't think it would be a hassle trying keep track of all your different currencies? Some stores might not allow certain currencies.

Some don't allow certain credit cards. Yet private credit cards are still good.

In any case, I highly doubt in a situation where currency had to have real value to get anywhere, anyone would deny trades in gold by weight, if convenience is the issue.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 5:56:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 4:11:37 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
You don't think it would be a hassle trying keep track of all your different currencies? Some stores might not allow certain currencies. Seems like it would just complicate and slow trade down to me.

Which is kind of why I'm iffy.

The response to your argument is that 6 pounds of gold minted under one company would be equal to 6 pounds of gold minted under another.

Coins would only have to mint to show coin weight/type and to maintain a level of legitimacy (in regards to counterfeit).
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 7:26:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Some don't allow certain credit cards. Yet private credit cards are still good.
Over $2.6 trillion in debt (in US alone) isn't good.

In any case, I highly doubt in a situation where currency had to have real value to get anywhere, anyone would deny trades in gold by weight, if convenience is the issue.
Companies would undoubtedly make deals with stores making it so only their currency was aloud in those stores.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 8:58:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 7:26:56 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Some don't allow certain credit cards. Yet private credit cards are still good.
Over $2.6 trillion in debt (in US alone) isn't good.
The fact that an idiot can hit themselves in the face with a shovel does not negate the value of a shovel.


In any case, I highly doubt in a situation where currency had to have real value to get anywhere, anyone would deny trades in gold by weight, if convenience is the issue.
Companies would undoubtedly make deals with stores making it so only their currency was aloud in those stores.
Such stores would become unpopular, rendering doubt for such high.
Stores exist which do not accept certain credit cards, but none exist to my knowledge which accept only credit cards.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 9:00:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Putting it in perspective, it's already the case that, for the internet, which essentially operates on the equivalent of private currency-- you can buy things just about anywhere with Paypal. The threat of future competition if Paypal doesn't stay competent is sufficient to keep it competent.

A government has no such threat :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2009 9:49:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Over $2.6 trillion in debt (in US alone) isn't good.
The fact that an idiot can hit themselves in the face with a shovel does not negate the value of a shovel.

People don't have a natural tendency to hit themselves in the face with a shovel. People do tend to think they have more money if they have a credit card, so they spend more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 6:47:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/5/2009 9:49:15 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Over $2.6 trillion in debt (in US alone) isn't good.
The fact that an idiot can hit themselves in the face with a shovel does not negate the value of a shovel.

People don't have a natural tendency to hit themselves in the face with a shovel. People do tend to think they have more money if they have a credit card, so they spend more.

"People" in general have no tendencies. Certain subgroupings within "people" do. Some of them hit themselves in the face with a shovel. Some of them use credit responsibly.

Cooperation needs no threat.
Gov't is force, not "cooperation." Corporations are "cooperation," internally anyway.

What'd you think of the video btw?
British accents ruin the joke. Modern Britain neither makes a good real "private" police force (Whether the form of police I advocate is considered privatized depends on your definition I suppose), nor a good joke private police force.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 12:44:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Gov't is force, not "cooperation." Corporations are "cooperation," internally anyway.
General agreement that government is needed for current society = Cooperation.

British accents ruin the joke. Modern Britain neither makes a good real "private" police force (Whether the form of police I advocate is considered privatized depends on your definition I suppose), nor a good joke private police force.
Don't like British humor?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 12:51:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 12:44:03 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Gov't is force, not "cooperation." Corporations are "cooperation," internally anyway.
General agreement that government is needed for current society = Cooperation.
No "General agreement" of the whole of those subject to government has ever occurred on any issue. Whatever "agreement" you point to, I can find a dissenter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 1:01:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 12:44:03 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Don't like British humor?

Lol, I love it!

On the topic at hand... I believe privatization is only needed when certain organizations, ie. police, are proven to be too ineffective and biased when run by the government. I don't see this happening yet, as Western police organizations have proven to be effective, well-funded and mostly unbiased. If they are found to be biased, they're dealt within the law just as any other person would be.

But that example is also a little pointless; how do you run a private police force without adhering to the laws that the government and courts create? There is no real "private" police force unless they make up their own laws, which is probably a very, very bad idea.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 1:03:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 12:51:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/6/2009 12:44:03 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Gov't is force, not "cooperation." Corporations are "cooperation," internally anyway.
General agreement that government is needed for current society = Cooperation.
No "General agreement" of the whole of those subject to government has ever occurred on any issue. Whatever "agreement" you point to, I can find a dissenter.
General: Applying to all or most members of a category or group. (http://www.google.com...) Most people aren't anarchists.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 1:11:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
But that example is also a little pointless; how do you run a private police force without adhering to the laws that the government and courts create? There is no real "private" police force unless they make up their own laws, which is probably a very, very bad idea.
I don't think they'd have to make their own laws to be private. Private mercenary companies exist now and they have to follow society's laws.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 1:15:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 1:11:37 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
I don't think they'd have to make their own laws to be private. Private mercenary companies exist now and they have to follow society's laws.

The point is that they're privately run, but they're not actually private. They must adhere to the government's regulation and laws in order to exist. They must submit to the government's scrutiny or they won't be around - basically, the free market doesn't apply to them.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 1:59:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 1:03:08 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
At 7/6/2009 12:51:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/6/2009 12:44:03 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Gov't is force, not "cooperation." Corporations are "cooperation," internally anyway.
General agreement that government is needed for current society = Cooperation.
No "General agreement" of the whole of those subject to government has ever occurred on any issue. Whatever "agreement" you point to, I can find a dissenter.
General: Applying to all or most members of a category or group. (http://www.google.com...) Most people aren't anarchists.

"Most" =/= cooperation. Only "All" would.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 2:22:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 2:18:29 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Cooperation:
1 : the action of cooperating : common effort
2 : association of persons for common benefit
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It obviously ain't common to all now is it?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 2:23:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 2:22:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/6/2009 2:18:29 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Cooperation:
1 : the action of cooperating : common effort
2 : association of persons for common benefit
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It obviously ain't common to all now is it?

It is common to those who are co-operating. Those that don't co-operate aren't apart of the co-operation, unless forced to be.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 2:27:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 2:23:50 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/6/2009 2:22:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/6/2009 2:18:29 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Cooperation:
1 : the action of cooperating : common effort
2 : association of persons for common benefit
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It obviously ain't common to all now is it?

It is common to those who are co-operating. Those that don't co-operate aren't apart of the co-operation, unless forced to be.

If forced, it's again not cooperation in regards to them.

Which is my whole point. You can't claim "You don't have to worry about it, it's cooperation," if the "you" isn't part of the cooperation, doesn't share it's goals, will be bent over by the cooperation gang and take whatever they cooperate to make you :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 2:32:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 2:27:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If forced, it's again not cooperation in regards to them.

Which is my whole point. You can't claim "You don't have to worry about it, it's cooperation," if the "you" isn't part of the cooperation, doesn't share it's goals, will be bent over by the cooperation gang and take whatever they cooperate to make you :).

It is co-operation of the majority to force the minority to co-operate, or else. This isn't because we're all mean spirited fascists, but that we feel it is better if everyone contributes, even if they don't want to.

If you don't like it, then I suggest you find a country where there is no one else but you or those with your ideological similarities. There, you can force those that come and don't share your ideology to co-operate, or else.
s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 2:54:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Majority force the minority to cooperate.

Two burglars enter your house. You come to confront them and in the spirit of democracy the three of you vote as to who owns the property in the house. You lose 2 to 1. You say that's not right.

Suppose the criminals were taking the the stuff to donate it to someone that needed it more than you and that they said their cause was just and it's best for you to cooperate. I guess it's okay then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2009 3:03:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/6/2009 2:54:14 PM, s0m31john wrote:
Majority force the minority to cooperate.

Two burglars enter your house. You come to confront them and in the spirit of democracy the three of you vote as to who owns the property in the house. You lose 2 to 1. You say that's not right.

Suppose the criminals were taking the the stuff to donate it to someone that needed it more than you and that they said their cause was just and it's best for you to cooperate. I guess it's okay then.

In the local situation, it is 2-to-1, and actually it is indeed best to co-operate to protect yourself from harm. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, or even like it - it is just in your self-interest to co-operate.

If you deem it unnecessary to co-operate and want to resist, best of luck to you in your endeavor.

Note, as well, I never said it was right. I said it was necessary. Necessary and right don't always go together.