Brock's libertarian response to Wicked Tribe

**BrockSamson** · 01-15-11, 02:30 AM

WickedTribe, I promise to get back to you tomorrow (well later today at this point) on all of your points and environmental protection stuff. Great points by the way, this is fun! hahaha Specifically about the food, or really any company that ships any product over the roads, I started to think about this myself earlier when I was typing my response.

**WickedTribe** · 01-15-11, 07:39 AM

No hurry Brock, the forum will still be here.

**WickedTribe** · 01-15-11, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by BrockSamson

You have to remember that the instant something is privatized it no longer takes your tax money. So you can't say something like "It cost 5x more now". Do you know how much of your taxes was taken to support those tolls or parking meters? I don't, but it definitely used to cost tax payer money. So you can't take the cost at face value because you were paying for it before with your taxes and now you are not.

Right, but that toll road in Indiana made more money than it cost. It made about 100m per year, and cost about 77m per year. That means that that road was bringing in income for the state, not costing it. Leasing the road made the state some money in the short term, but will cost them more in lost income in the long term. It was a short-sighted solution. On top of that, that's just highways. Highways and bridges, we're used to paying tolls on, and they're heavily used, so the cost per car is low. Imagine if there was a toll on the street out front, and the next street over, and every street between you your destination. Imagine how expensive some of those tolls would be if only 20 cars used that street a day.

But you know who isn't paying a dime for those meters or tolls, its the fucking guy/gal that walks or uses their bike. They shouldn't be paying for that service. They don't use it. It SHOULD cost money to the people that use it and not the people that don't. It should also cost more than it did before, not only because you are not paying for it TWICE anymore, because the people who don't use it are not paying tax money for it.

I'm that guy. I walk or ride to work every day. I live in a city, and probably drive my car less than once a month. That said, I still need roads and sidewalks, I need the traffic lights to work, the streets and sidewalks to be cleaned, plowed and policed. On top of that, my food all comes in by road. Taking it one step more indirect, if I worked in retail, my customers might be coming in by road, or my boss, or my employees, and without these roads, my business couldn't operate.

The society that we live in is a complex network of inter-dependencies. Without things like electricity, roads, and clean water, it simply wouldn't work, and we all need it to work. A person saying that they don't use a major piece of infrastructure would be like a cell in your body saying that it didn't need the nervous system, because it's not touching a neuron.

Thats the problem with arguments for privatization. They say "Well now it costs me money". Dude, it always cost you money, it was just never itemized for you on your taxes. Now that there is actual transparency and accountability somehow its a bad thing.

I think that most people know that things funded though tax cost them money, but there's no indication that privatizing will cost them less money. The only difference is that instead of paying for taxes, they'll be paying in tolls, bills and in the increased prices of products. Paying for and owning shared infrastructure means that we can spread out the cost, so that less profitable, but equally necessary investments can be made (like rural roads).

And what makes you think that private companies will be more transparent or accountable? Governments publish their budgets, private companies don't. And accountable? Did you watch the recent wall street scandals?

**dex71** · 01-15-11, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by BrockSamson

But you know who isn't paying a dime for those meters or tolls, its the fucking guy/gal that walks or uses their bike. They shouldn't be paying for that service. They don't use it. It SHOULD cost money to the people that use it and not the people that don't. It should also cost more than it did before, not only because you are not paying for it TWICE anymore, because the people who don't use it are not paying tax money for it.

But, as Wicked pointed out, they ARE using it....even if they walk or ride a bike. Their walking shoes (most likely made in Indonesia or China) didn't just fall out of the sky over their town. Same with the Tilapia they had for dinner, and the Japanese TV they watched afterward. And how did their bicycle get there?

Can you imagine the price increases of a "road fee" being applied to EVERYTHING you use/consume that isn't created within walking distance? Now you are paying for the roads (and making your payments to people who had nothing to do with building the roads) hundreds if not thousands of times. It may not be as bad for those who live near ports, but what about the middle of the country (where hundreds of these private roads would have to be used to move goods)?

Make no mistake....even if they never set wheel one on the roads....they reap the benefits every day....hundreds of times. Everything they eat,wear, or use, came in from that road.

**deputyfestus** · 01-15-11, 10:11 AM

I'll post this snippet since some here have LAD. (Link Aversion Disorder) Conquer your fears click the link and read, become the master of the resource rich world.

Brock's libertarian response to Wicked Tribe-viewer-1-png

Brock's libertarian response to Wicked Tribe-viewer-png

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...%2FRL33777.pdf

**Toad** · 01-15-11, 03:04 PM

deputy, if you took the time to read the discussion and then reply in your own words to the points people make, or present your own case in your own words in the specific context of the discussion, you'd probably get more traction. Just posting a bunch of links that talk about privatization of public resources and saying "read this" without a real attempt to work those documents into the context of the discussion (i.e. using parts of the documents to specifically counterpoint, or lay out support of your own words) doesn't give anyone else much incentive to bother with them.

Brock, if it makes you feel better, the public frequently does get into a state where a private vendor has taken over most of a particular public service. In many large-scale government projects, the primary vendor winds up with so much infrastructure and corporate knowledge devoted to that project that they have pretty free reign to maximize private sector efficiency. In cost-plus or time&materials contracts, their costs are shown to the government who can realize some of the benefits of this efficiency, if the contractor is honest in their accounting. The issue is that a lot of these services require so much spin-up that only one vendor is going to do them (such as building a new type of stealth fighter, a new nationwide air traffic control system, or the building of a giant new road). Once that vendor gets in as incumbent, the barrier to entry is high enough that you're not going to get other vendors competing for that, and what you've done is basically just remove the little government oversight that there was before. That is not the recipe for making things cheaper, unless you've somehow made the management for publicly-traded companies NOT interested in the bottom line.

In my opinion, to get better contracts, you need to have more expertise on the government side for requirements and contracts, as well as making legislators like Congress (and on down) honest enough that they won't get lobbied by big contractors to set aside funds for those contractors without the proper oversight. Our last glorious leader president Bush put a woman in charge of the FAA who was in the pocket of the aviation industry, and she brought her other cohorts in and guess what... a lot of sweetheart contracts for aviation companies! Expertise at the requirements and contracts levels only goes so far when the people up the chain shoot you in the foot, and that is really the pull that private contractors have. They can buy the best expertise (because they can pay them $200K if they want to) and they can buy the management (golden parachutes are very common to those leaving the federal service who had risen near the top). Fix THOSE problems and you'll get better government oversight and better value from contractors. Let the contractors do whatever they want and hope that enough of them devote millions of dollars to every service we need, so that we can pick the best between them, and we're going to have a giant mess (and wind up spending as much or more money).

**deputyfestus** · 01-15-11, 06:33 PM

I feel that privatization can and does work it seems to be a growing trend,I also agree that gov oversight is a must, as for corruption and fulfillment of the contract I think that would be easier and faster to correct in privatization providing your oversight committee is not corrupt as well. Let's assume that the gov oversight is well educated and beyond reproach then I feel privatization would far out preform status quo. I'm talking civil and social services not military or justice system.

FYI: If I post in a thread I've read each post and corresponding links. Why would anyone post had they had not done so? Nevermind I know the answer.

**WickedTribe** · 01-15-11, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by deputyfestus

I feel that privatization can and does work it seems to be a growing trend,I also agree that gov oversight is a must, as for corruption and fulfillment of the contract I think that would be easier and faster to correct in privatization providing your oversight committee is not corrupt as well. Let's assume that the gov oversight is well educated and beyond reproach then I feel privatization would far out preform status quo. I'm talking civil and social services not military or justice system.

FYI: If I post in a thread I've each post and corresponding links. Why would anyone post had they had not done so? Nevermind I know the answer.

Deputy, I think that Toad's point was that, instead of just posting links, you should make an argument, in your own words, and use the link to justify it, or at the very least, tell us what the point of the link is.

And for your argument, first of all, you can't assume that the regulatory agency is competent and honest when the supposed fact that government run agencies are neither of those things is one of the main arguments for libertarianism. So assuming the truth, that both government officials and private businessmen are suceptible to laziness, incompetency and corruption, why is it easier to correct this corruption in a privatized system?

**deputyfestus** · 01-15-11, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Deputy, I think that Toad's point was that, instead of just posting links, you should make an argument, in your own words, and use the link to justify it, or at the very least, tell us what the point of the link is.

And for your argument, first of all, you can't assume that the regulatory agency is competent and honest when the supposed fact that government run agencies are neither of those things is one of the main arguments for libertarianism. So assuming the truth, that both government officials and private businessmen are suceptible to laziness, incompetency and corruption, why is it easier to correct this corruption in a privatized system?

Let's imagine that the gov oversight is well educated and beyond reproach then I feel privatization would far out preform status quo. I'm talking civil and social services not military or justice system

There feel better.

Well to rid yourself of corrupt gov official is a lengthy complicated process whereas in private business it's BAM don't let the door hit you in the ass.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-15-11, 09:18 PM

I can agree with deputy on this. Private companies are 99% of the time way more effecient at just about everything when compared to the government. However companies can not be fully trusted. Putting someone from which ever government office in place with every project would make about the best scenario you can ask for. This however for excludes military for me at least. In my opinion that would just be a fucking abortion waiting to happen. As far as accountability you dont get a better chance to hold someone accountably then having it be someone from a company. Quick and easy firing/lawsuits verses a long drawn out investigation to find the normal inconclusive results.

The bigger problem is that damn near everyone in society can figure out way to make it better and not one damn thing will happen. Personally this is why i think any major decision wether it be changes or funding should be voted on. We will never be able to get anything straightened out as long as we have career politicians representing us but thats just my opinion on it.