This form of government is called anarcho-capitalism, and under such a system private companies are still limited by their ability to persuade consumers to buy from them and not the competition, so they had better get their act together if they want to make money. And if all the companies want to get together and form a cartel, then new companies will come in and take their place. And if the cartel wants to stop them by force with private police, the people will form their own private police and stop them, with their own private money.
Under such a system that the pro supports, which is called anarcho-capitalism, private organizations only get money if people choose to pay for their services, and under a free market that no longer suffers from government intervention, there are a multitude of competing companies that must get their act together if they are to get customers, unlike a government, which is based on coercion. And if every company got together and formed a cartel, a new business would come in, and if they tried hiring private defense to "kill em' " then the people will hire private defense of their own, and the allocation of resources will be free from government corruption. People would be free to protect their property, thus protecting the value of resources.
Sandy Springs, Georgia did this with many of the municipal functions in their town in 2005. They did it for less than half of what it would have cost to have the government do it, were able to keep taxes low, and have no debt in their city. Other than the police and fire departments, the city has seven government employees. SEVEN! The rest is outsourced, more efficient, less expensive, and better run. It is a win all around for this city that dared break the mold.
- it would get rid of welfare and other government run programs
- get rid of social security and have people work (FYI, pretty sure government does not control social security)
- it would make our economy more efficient
- less government waste
- make us more efficient
- most likely increase spending
- bring in more exports and stock markets would be better
- trade would be more balanced
What do you think?
Living in the UK, we have had a taste of what deregulation and privatisation does. At varying points steel, oil, coal, communications, gas, mail, you name it. After Thatcher these industries for the most part were made public and over time have steadily increased profits while shrinking the pay of employees in real terms. Even with all the regulation in these sectors people are highly discontent with corporations having control over their basic human needs.
Although I would like to begin by stating that I think that in most regions, a government re-formation is necessary due to the lack of economical care that is being placed on US citizens and because of the lack of humanitarian progression in many States. However I think it would be foolish to place that much power in the hands of private organizations which we are not even allowed to vote for. For example, history in Australia suggests that when we have privatized what used to be government ran organizations, it has not been in the interests of its citizens. Electricity companies in Australia used to be Government ran however it was sold of to a private organization by the coalition to 'make the Australian economy stronger', which it did except now that it was now a private organizations, regulations could not be put in place to tell the new owners how much to charge Australian citizens which put 'the standard of living' into a more demanding state. Meaning that electricity prices had tripled since it had been Government operated. And the only way around having to pay the private operators is by purchasing overpriced solar panels or not using electricity which has become a necessity in modern day society. I personally do not believe that Government organizations can be trusted in the hands of private investors and operators because they OFTEN (not always), prioritize profit over the detrimental affects which could happen to families and citizens when they raise the price to high to suit their own money hungry agendas. Government organizations such as 'centrelink' (welfare) have benefited the lower class people in society who were never given as much of a chance, giving them an opportunity which would not be afforded to them if this were not in place, and it would not be in place if everything was ran by private businesses. Without Government control over many organizations, it leaves potential for private operators to poorly affect citizens, which is something we cannot risk.
Overall I would say NO, although I agree with some of the aspects which would agree with this idea although I think too many risks are involved with this sort of re-formation of Government control. Re-structuring the Government in this day and age is very necessary but we can not hand over Government organizations to the higher bidder because in the end Government organizations affect citizens and when you take away Government operation and regulation (which we have a right to vote for (in democratic societies)), you take away some of the rights of citizens.
What do you think?