[Bakunin]

all of which are readily sourcable from an enormous variety of people or, indeed, quite easily from oneself if one chooses to live the isolationist lifestyle.

As part of your libertarian world view many previously nationalised industries such as water have been privatised and the people who have lost have been the poor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2959396.stm

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2...multinationals

Both these pieces include cases of privatisation of public resources and how this was cheered on by the Friedmanites.

[L i b]

(Original post by Bakunin)
As part of your libertarian world view many previously nationalised industries such as water have been privatised and the people who have lost have been the poor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2959396.stm

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2...multinationals

Both these pieces include cases of privatisation of public resources and how this was cheered on by the Friedmanites.

And equally plenty of people have benefited from privatisation. For one, getting a telephone line installed now takes a day rather than two weeks back when it BT a nationalised monopoly.

Equally, privatisation does not equal denying access or a complete removal of state support. You are not going to have your water cut off here simply because you can't pay your bills.

In the case of South Africa, it sounds like the water companies are simply being scapegoated for the failures of the government.

[davireland]

(Original post by L i b)
And equally plenty of people have benefited from privatisation. For one, getting a telephone line installed now takes a day rather than two weeks back when it BT a nationalised monopoly.

Yeah, I agree with that. Privatisation does have benefits but in this country today it has become almost a naughty word that no politician should say. Some aspects of the de-nationalisation during the 1980's benefited Britain enormously, Libs example is quite right, service within these companies such as BT, British Gas etc etc has generally improved due to the fact they have to improve to stay in business.

People are quick to cite unemployment as a consequence of privatisation but if a business is unprofitable to either a board of directors or the state then cutbacks need to be made, yes, back in the days when there were lots of national companies, job security was higher yet some were costing the state more than they were making.

There is only one case where I believe that privatisation would be a mistake and that is the NHS.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by davireland)
There is only one case where I believe that privatisation would be a mistake and that is the NHS.

Why is this? Do you think huge monopolies work for health care but not for anything else, or do you conflate "NHS privatisation" with an end to redistributive healthcare coverage for the poor?

[davireland]

simply because at the moment everyone has a basic level of free (free as in free at point of use) healthcare, presently if someone wants a higher level of heathcare then they can simply go private or invest in a private health insurance such as the lovely Bupa advert which is flashing in front of me. My point is that the NHS gives a basic level of care to everyone to privatise this would undoubtably mean further charges. I know as Libertarians you are probably against the NHS due to the fact that everyone has to pay but as a pragmatic Conservative, I think that the NHS should simply be re-organised not reformed.

I just believe heathcare should be independant of business interests because the hypocratic oath does not mention charging for your services, for me there is a kind of immorality to a system of healthcare such as in America where many of the most vulnerable members of society are excluded from any heathcare, also think of the people with hereditary illnesses who would not be able to get private insurance what will happen to them?. In one respect yes the NHS does have a monopoly over heathcare because everyone has to pay NI but I think there is the choice for members of society who think the NHS is inadequete .

and btw, im talking as myself not as deputy leader of the tories because there are quite a few people in the party who disagree with me over the NHS.

[Bakunin]

British Gas

Thousands are now in fuel poverty because of rising fuel bills.

Why? Because it is more profitable to charge a select few a lot of money for gas than to charge everyone a fair amount.

[Collingwood]

Aren't you describing progressive taxation there? Gas bills as far as I know are not graded by income, and British Gas also charged its customers per use.

[DrunkHamster]

(Original post by Bakunin)
Thousands are now in fuel poverty because of rising fuel bills.

Why? Because it is more profitable to charge a select few a lot of money for gas than to charge everyone a fair amount.

What is a 'fair' price for gas? How can someone decide what is a 'fair' amount to charge?

The problem is that gas is expensive, not that the gas companies are ripping people off.

[Bakunin]

Aren't you describing progressive taxation there? Gas bills as far as I know are not graded by income, and British Gas also charged its customers per use.

No.

I'm describing a system where gas companies put up prices so they can take money off the wealthiest and then leave millions in poverty.

If we had a state run system then it could be priced according to income.

[Collingwood]

Only by providing a de-facto gas subsidy, causing overconsumption and, ultimately, shortages.

By far the least damaging way of achieving your objective would be to give the poor a direct cash subsidy which they could use to buy gas, though in actuality very few people do not have access to gas and most of those because the state has co-opted their pensions.

[DrunkHamster]

(Original post by Bakunin)
No.
I'm describing a system where gas companies put up prices so they can take money off the wealthiest and then leave millions in poverty.

It's not the gas companies, who are charging barely over the market price to their customers, that leave millions in poverty. No, I'd look at the obscenely regressive fuel and VAT taxes that really do the job.

[davireland]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Only by providing a de-facto gas subsidy, causing overconsumption and, ultimately, shortages.

This is true, if you offer people cheap resources they will be greedy and take more simply because its cheaper than it was before (its human nature) and this will result in a shortage like Collingwood said.

[CyclopsRock]

Bump for upcoming election.

I have a question for my fellow Libertarians - Why do you think thrifty and neccessarily small public spending is a better alternative to massive funding and borrowing to feed a hungry, behemothic and ever-less-efficient centralised state to piss away our money on bailing out failed businesses and playing with the money markets with the hope that an ecomomic boom will last just long enough for them to get re-elected?

[tommm]

Are you guys gonna win some more seats this time so we can actually have a decent right-wing presence in the house?

[paperclip]

(Original post by tommm)
Are you guys gonna win some more seats this time so we can actually have a decent right-wing presence in the house?

lol, love the sig...

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by tommm)
Are you guys gonna win some more seats this time so we can actually have a decent right-wing presence in the house?

Not happy with the Tories?

I'm sure my fellow Libs will join me in saying "we hope so".

[Collingwood]

(Original post by tommm)
Are you guys gonna win some more seats this time so we can actually have a decent right-wing presence in the house?

It's difficult to fight the brand recognition now that people are pretending to be the Tories (and pretend really is the operative word). We used to win loads of seats.

[tommm]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
Not happy with the Tories?

I'm sure my fellow Libs will join me in saying "we hope so".

Very happy with the Tories, but it's annoying having one big right-wing party against three big left-wing ones.

[LawBore]

With regards to hospitals- How exactly does obligatory health-insurance differ from compulsory tax for the NHS?

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by LawBore)
With regards to hospitals- How exactly does obligatory health-insurance differ from compulsory tax for the NHS?

Not sure I understand the question. How are they the same?