>>Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department
CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.<<
I don't have a problem with having taxes to pay for full time firefighters. (and most police functions,national defense, etc.) There are a LOT more frivolous uses of taxpayer money. I would never expect someone to volunteer for free to risk their life for me. Even heroes get hungry.
Here in Virginia its rumored the government may suspend all but essential state services due to a possible budget deadlock. Then you think "Well.... shouldn't it be like that all the time?"
Here in Virginia its rumored the government may suspend all but essential state services due to a possible budget deadlock. Then you think "Well.... shouldn't it be like that all the time?"
****************************
Ask that again after they close the libraries.
One thing all governments, be they federal, state or civic, have in common, is that when they want the People to know there is a budget crunch, the "non-essential" things they close down or get rid of tend to be things people notice are gone, like libraries, public parks, swimming pools, etc. The fifteen cousins each legislator has on his payroll are never considered "non-essential".
JB: When they want the People to know there is a budget crunch, the "non-essential" things they close down or get rid of tend to be things people notice are gone.
---
A particularly dispicable subpractice in the two states I have lived in is when the tax increase they're trying to sell is particularly unpalatable, they close the State Schools for the Blind and Deaf.
For our inherent resentment to paying taxes we should occasionally remember that we do pay fewer taxes then most of the rest of the industrialized world. Don’t get me wrong I dislike taxes as much as the next individual and waste, fraud, and abuse are still a problem. To go to a more libertarian approach and allow the free market to deliver services does not always work when the laws of supply and demand can not function and more importantly when “perfect” information is unavailable to the consumer. Also, before we hoist the corporate world up on a pedestal as a model of efficiency, we should be aware of the waste, fraud, and abuse that occur corporately. Also a corporation’s accountability may not be the same as en entity that is suppose to be “of, by, and for the people”.
…but I digress…
Edited my spelling x2
This message has been edited by AndrewDavey on Apr 22, 2004 11:03 AM This message has been edited by AndrewDavey on Apr 22, 2004 11:00 AM
"For our inherent resentment to paying taxes we should occasionally remember that we do pay fewer taxes then most of the rest of the industrialized world."
So what?
"To go to a more libertarian approach and allow the free market to deliver services does not always work when the laws of supply and demand can not function and more importantly when “perfect” information is unavailable to the consumer."
"Better is the enemy of good." Because a free market/privatization approach isn't "perfect" we should be satisfied with bloated, inefficient government that never has any reason to improve. They have the power to simply raise our taxes whenever they please and the power to jail us if we don't comply with payment. Since (theoretically) privatization only solves 73% of the problems we can't do that at all, because it's not "perfect?"
"Also, before we hoist the corporate world up on a pedestal as a model of efficiency, we should be aware of the waste, fraud, and abuse that occur corporately. Also a corporation’s accountability may not be the same as en entity that is suppose to be “of, by, and for the people”.
When a private company does not deliver (whether due to waste, fraud, and abuse or just being a lousy company) they lose business. That's a lot more accountability than we see in government.
One thing all governments, be they federal, state or civic, have in common, is that when they want the People to know there is a budget crunch, the "non-essential" things they close down or get rid of tend to be things people notice are gone, like libraries, public parks, swimming pools, etc.
Ain't that the truth. A few years back our city was facing a budget shortage. The first "non-essential" item put on the block? Elementary school crossing guards!
How about the Liberal who has to think twice about letting his house burn down since all property is theft and no one should be allowed private ownership of a house or its contents in the first place?
As tough as it is to respond to that, I would think you would be glad we pay low taxes and have one of the most efficient governments in the world (still in constant need of reform mind you).
"Better is the enemy of good." Because a free market/privatization approach isn't "perfect" we should be satisfied with bloated, inefficient government that never has any reason to improve. They have the power to simply raise our taxes whenever they please and the power to jail us if we don't comply with payment. Since (theoretically) privatization only solves 73% of the problems we can't do that at all, because it's not "perfect?"
Actually I thought we the people had the power here and I can change policy whenever I choose at the ballot box. So the government can’t just do what you suggest without ramifications. Remember, we are the goverment. My quote of "perfect" referred to perfect information that is needed if a truely capitalistic market is to function. I am for privatization, but for those things were the market forces can and will function better then the goverment. Which is lot of things. There are also things a govermental role is better suited for.
"When a private company does not deliver (whether due to waste, fraud, and abuse or just being a lousy company) they lose business. That's a lot more accountability than we see in government."
They loose business if they don’t hold considerable market power (monopoly, oligopoly, high barriers to entry for competition, high cost of capital, etc.) and if the product or service does not have a normal elasticity of demand. Think of a drug company who makes the only medicine that will treat your illness. If you can not do without a product and there is no substitute. There is more accountability to shareholders not to the public in general. Repeating: Privatization is good when the market can function normally. When it can not (or will not) Goverment has a role to provide (along with other roles like regulate).
for-profit companies delivering services is just as heinous an evil as government. Here in Ontario privatization of services has been dabbled with and resulted uniformly in the cost of those services rising exponentially, and outright fraud.
IMO the only way government can be reduced and handed over to for-profit companies is, as implied above, monopoly laws are entirely reworked and stringently enforced, or else it will be just a different devil abusing us.
Growing up in upstate NY, the town had an all-volunteer fire department affectionately known as "The Foundation Savers," as they had never let the brickwork burn... A lotta people would have paid for some firemen.
(Keep in mind, I'm the son and grandson of full-time NYC firemen.)
I certainly don't mind my tax dollars going to pay for fire protection. Like our libertarian friend in the article at the top of the post may reconsider this portion of the libertarian platform as well (especially if too many blanks in the platform catch fire).
Edited for Spelling
This message has been edited by AndrewDavey on Apr 22, 2004 1:00 PM
Actually I thought we the people had the power here and I can change policy whenever I choose at the ballot box. So the government can’t just do what you suggest without ramifications. Remember, we are the goverment. My quote of "perfect" referred to perfect information that is needed if a truely capitalistic market is to function. I am for privatization, but for those things were the market forces can and will function better then the goverment. Which is lot of things. There are also things a govermental role is better suited for.
No one can change policy "whenever they choose!" Sure, your vote counts, but it can take years to effect changes in policy, and it takes far more than one person. Whereas if a private firm isn't doing the job, they can be fired and the work given to one of their competitors in less time than it takes to tell. I work for a bottled-water company. I know if I don't provide the service my customers need, then one of my competitors is only a phone call away. That gives me the impetus to provide the best customer service I can, which is a desire that simply does not exist in government.
One thing all governments, be they federal, state or civic, have in common, is that when they want the People to know there is a budget crunch, the "non-essential" things they close down or get rid of tend to be things people notice are gone, like libraries, public parks, swimming pools, etc. The fifteen cousins each legislator has on his payroll are never considered "non-essential".
****************************
The things you mentioned I either don't use or have access to private sector replacements. But your point is well made and true nonetheless. A few years back a money saving procedure our governor decided on was to close a large number of DMV offices. Since most Virginians are usually required to deal with these offices or face legal punishments it was a shrewd way to make everyone "feel the budget crunch". So now the remaining offices had to deal with a large number of people. There were huge lines stretching out of some of the buildings where Virginians had to wait in in order to pay off their government for permission to drive, register their cars, etc.
Now that I am out of the military and can actually vote in the state I reside I always go to vote no matter how small the election. I can't wait for the next gubernatorial election. As a matter of fact our district hold its polls at the local LIBRARY...D'OH!
Yes Charles it undoubtedly is. Fact is most liberals in this country would be regarded as moderate to conservative in the rest of the world. But if it weren't for this perverse polarization going on there'd be no one to whom one can blame our troubles. Living in a glass house and all that.
They lose business if they don’t hold considerable market power (monopoly, oligopoly, high barriers to entry for competition, high cost of capital, etc.) and if the product or service does not have a normal elasticity of demand. Think of a drug company who makes the only medicine that will treat your illness. If you can not do without a product and there is no substitute. There is more accountability to shareholders not to the public in general. Repeating: Privatization is good when the market can function normally. When it can not (or will not) Goverment has a role to provide (along with other roles like regulate).
*************************
I know market theory teaches that whenever you have more competition and less regulation, prices should go down. It's just that that never seems to happen in practice. For example, cable television was deregulated and that did nothing to lower prices.
For-profit companies must make a profit for their efforts, which means the money that would have gone to the government to, say, pick up trash, now goes to some chief executive and his staff, all of whom make more money (at the top) than government employees, get bonuses, etc. The problem with this is that there must always be money left over to pay the big boys and/or splash some cash to the shareholders (the company must be profitable for anyone to want to invest in it). Therefore, the corporation doing the public job must collect more.
The excesses of corporate America's executives make privitization of public service jobs an unworkable model, IMO. And as someone else said, companies are responsible to their shareholders, not to the public.
If recent history has taught us nothing else, it should be that corporations cannot be trusted to act in the public interest. (I just wish Michael Powell and the rest of the FCC would get that.)
As a government employee I admit that tehre is too much govt.
I believe the latest statistics I read showed the federal govt employed 23-27% of the working population in one way or another. That's enormous and bloated.
For example, cable television was deregulated and that did nothing to lower prices.
---
Cable television is treated in most jurisdictions as a utility. Utilities are the closest thing in private business to government. I'll consider CATV deregulated when there are four cable TV outlets in town, (right after I get a choice of four local phone companies.)
I'll consider CATV deregulated when there are four cable TV outlets in town, (right after I get a choice of four local phone companies.)
Exactly, with one caveat: You can pretty much choose whoever you want as a local provider of phone service in most large areas. True here in Southern California, as I could have Verizon, AT&T, Bell or any of a number of other companies be my local phone carrier. I don't have that choice with cable. Personally, I'd opt to have Time/Warner as my company. They're available in Burbank. Unfortunately, living in North Hollywood, I have to have Adelphia if I want cable TV at all. Adelphia sucks, but I'm stuck with 'em. So much for the free market and deregulation.
”No one can change policy "whenever they choose!" Sure, your vote counts, but it can take years to effect changes in policy, and it takes far more than one person. Whereas if a private firm isn't doing the job, they can be fired and the work given to one of their competitors in less time than it takes to tell. I work for a bottled-water company. I know if I don't provide the service my customers need, then one of my competitors is only a phone call away. That gives me the impetus to provide the best customer service I can, which is a desire that simply does not exist in government.”
I agree Kevin, that my example of my vote being all-powerful is a little overblown. But I was trying to challenge the myth that government is unaccountable and business is totally accountable. Also wanted to reinforce that here in the USA, we are the government. If a government service isn’t working there are things we can do (and have done). Apathy is one of the main reasons some things are not.
Your industry (bottled water) as a consumer product is competitive and it is easy quantify the information related to your product. There are a lot of competitors and a lot substitutes affecting the elasticity of demand. And I can see how you would need to be responsive to survive. I would disagree with your blanket statement that there is no incentive for customer service in the public sector. This statement that it “simply does not exist” implies more knowledge then either you or I have and just reinforces a stereotype.
Edited: Can't Spell
This message has been edited by AndrewDavey on Apr 22, 2004 5:42 PM
I stand by my statement. There is nothing that impels the government workers to provide excellent service or go the extra mile for their "customers" other than their own personalities. We can't take our business elsewhere, and their jobs are far more secure than most of ours are already. Most don't have the enticement of a raise or promotion if they do their job well; those are things that they know they will get in due course just because they belong to a union. They aren't encouraged to excel, only to meet a median standard. There's no great gains ahead for them if they work harder than the guy next to them, and no real negatives coming their way if they're just a "so-so" worker.
You can pretty much choose whoever you want as a local provider of phone service in most large areas. True here in Southern California, as I could have Verizon, AT&T, Bell or any of a number of other companies be my local phone carrier. I don't have that choice with cable. Personally, I'd opt to have Time/Warner as my company. They're available in Burbank. Unfortunately, living in North Hollywood, I have to have Adelphia if I want cable TV at all. Adelphia sucks, but I'm stuck with 'em. So much for the free market and deregulation.
********************
It's a well-known secret that cable companies won't compete against one another. That's the reason you only have one choice for cable TV.
I live in a town serviced by Cablevision (and badly serviced, IMO). The next town over is run by Comcast. In a recent newspaper article, a Comcast spokesperson was asked if they'd ever consider adding my town to their service area. "Oh no," the spokesman said, "That's a Cablevision town."
If you're interested, do some scouting online and you'll find that cable companies have an unspoken agreement not to compete (at least the big ones -- not so for upstarts like RCN, but RCN can't muster enough capital to add any new service areas).
The great thing about cable, if it is too expensive YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT.
And cable companines don't just compete with each other- they compete with Dishs, movies, internet and so on....
Good point, Dwayne. It's a bit of a hardship to get by without water or electricity, but cable TV is definitely not a necessity. Nearly all of us "oldsters" grew up without it, I'd wager.
The great thing about cable, if it is too expensive YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT.
And cable companines don't just compete with each other- they compete with Dishs, movies, internet and so on....
For my job, I have to have it. I can't not know what's currently on television. Cable companies don't compete with one another. That's the whole point. In big cities like LA, they have zones where they are the only game in that zone. The internet doesn't have all channels 24/7 streaming. The only way to get it there is to download it illegally and everyone knows how I feel about that. Apartment dwelling can be problematic at best when getting a dish. Sure, you can get them, but at least in my area I've had friends almost go to court with landlords over the right to put a dish on the roof (many can't be put in the window because of where their windows face relative to the satellite and positioning of other buildings in the way). Not worth the hassle to me. So I'm stuck with my sucky cable company.
See? No competition the American way. I didn't think that was supposed to be the end result of deregulation, but that's what happened.
Well, Matt, at least you can write it off as a job expense, right?
Yeah, I do have that luxury. Doesn't excuse the fact that Adelphia sucks!
(BTW, have you noticed that your Robo-dolly is missing?)
Thanks for letting me know. I noticed this morning that the site I have it linked to exceeded its bandwidth and was shut down. Since I didn't save it, I'm back to the old Robo-dolly until that site is open again and I can just save the image.
Can you guys get the dish? Or is that just for the country bumpkins?
I addressed this in my reply upthread:
Apartment dwelling can be problematic at best when getting a dish. Sure, you can get them, but at least in my area I've had friends almost go to court with landlords over the right to put a dish on the roof (many can't be put in the window because of where their windows face relative to the satellite and positioning of other buildings in the way). Not worth the hassle to me. So I'm stuck with my sucky cable company.
But the fact that you can live without something does not matter to market theory and if competition works. Does not sound like it does in some of the examples you people mention.
Here is a good example of how competition have failed in the UK - we used to have one number for directory enquires in the UK. We'd phone up and you would get the number. Thanks to the magic of competition we now have about 40 numbers which charge between 70-200% more with a massive decline in the standard of the service.
Whereas you can look up the number for nothing on the net - but tough luck for those who don't have the net, pensioners in particular. In fact, in the UK, many things like directory enquiries and call centres in general are being outsourced to Asia - unit cost of providing the service is substantially cheaper, but the standard of service tends to suffer drastically.
Returning to the cost cutting examples above, my local authority - the Isle of Wight - features two good ones in the last couple of weeks. In order to bridge its budget deficit, it has cut from its Leisure Services budget the £7,300 (about $10,000) which goes each summer to pay local bands to play at bandstands for holidaymakers (typically, a brass band 30-40 strong including a lot of youngsters, playing for 60-90 minutes for a fee of $150 or so). Given that we are very much a traditional UK seaside holiday destination, this seems to be a false economy. At the same time, the Council is advertising a new post at an annual salary of £40,000 for someone whose job will be "to facilitate communications between the Council and the community," whatever that means.
But Neil the a large percentage of individual 192 calls were from people out and about - so the net is not really a compensating factor - well unless you have an XDA like me....
"For our inherent resentment to paying taxes we should occasionally remember that we do pay fewer taxes then most of the rest of the industrialized world. Don’t get me wrong I dislike taxes as much as the next individual and waste, fraud, and abuse are still a problem."
************************************************
You're right, you have a far better deal than most (for example, I would pay about half the amount of tax in The United States as I do here in Australia) but I think it's that perpetual fire of resentment that keeps you with that deal. In other words, because you guys still are not satisfied with your level of taxes, there's an influence on the government not to get too out of control.
Gratitude and cognizance of how good you have it is what has given Australia one of the highest taxing governments in the world, and THE worst tax-to-services ratio in the OECD. Not to mention three levels of government (Federal, State and local) for fewer than 20million people.
Don't ever lose that fierce hatred for over-government!
____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.
“I stand by my statement. There is nothing that impels the government workers to provide excellent service or go the extra mile for their "customers" other than their own personalities. We can't take our business elsewhere, and their jobs are far more secure than most of ours are already. Most don't have the enticement of a raise or promotion if they do their job well; those are things that they know they will get in due course just because they belong to a union. They aren't encouraged to excel, only to meet a median standard. There's no great gains ahead for them if they work harder than the guy next to them, and no real negatives coming their way if they're just a "so-so" worker.”
Which “so-so” workers are you referring to Kevin? The ones fighting for us in Iraq? Maybe the local police, fire, and emergency services? For such a large segment of the work force we should avoid such a broad stereotype. Are all tax payer funded workers are lazy with no system to motivate them? This happens in corporations as well when the owners are distant from the managers and the workers. Maybe you are referring to the school teachers who have it so easy and make so much money? Our local librarians? Most federal government jobs have a very sophisticated grade and pay scale that seeks to reward efficient and effective workers. Many aspects of governmental accounting has been reworked to try to create efficient measurements for service sectors. That being said, like any large organization there is always fraud and waste. But I still feel we are ill equipped to judge the broad range of governmental sector as in-efficient to the point of needing libertarianism. As I argued before, there is a role for the goverment when the free market forces can not (or will not) function.
True, there is no substitute for the individual who owes and operates the business but you should then also then be arguing against large corporations in favor of smaller leaner business entities. Everyone is more highly motivated when they have some "skin" in the game.
So...back to generating tax revenues....have a good Monday...
I already said that the government should be responsible for things like the military, police, fire, and emergency services. I would think it obvious that I'm not including them in my description because I don't think they should be privatized in the first place! However, I would include the following based on my personal experience over the past 20 years; city administrative offices, city engineering offices, planning & zoning offices, records offices of all shapes and sizes, garbage and trash pickup, maintenance workers, offices that issue permits of all kinds, water and power departments, public works departments, most of the teachers my children have had, most of the administrators of their schools, and every single board of education office that I have ever had to deal with. It's not a stereotype; it's my personal judgment on government workers of all kinds that I have had to deal with in four separate states over the course of my adult life.
However, every librarian I've ever met has been quite helpful.
I had to grit my teeth and write a 20 page paper on how bad the Patriot Act is and why librarians should be on the front lines of the battle against Information Illiteracy.
::shudder::
I never, EVER, want to be THAT kind of librarian (I will be going to ALA's conference, however, so I can get my hands on those freebie books! Wheeeee!).
Just so we're clear, I was the one who locked this thread. You're a good friend, Mike, but there was no cause to use the language you used in your reply (which you'll note that I deleted). Time to move on to other topics that won't send the blood pressure through the roof.
