Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That is one example. How many examples of private companies doing better are there that show improvement?
    Would you rather go into an NHS hospital or a private one to have surgery?
    Yes you are quite right that is only one example, and I'm sure that in some cases privatisation works better. I suppose the more important question is are there any examples from around the world of emergancy services being privatised and remaining viable? If there aren't there must be a reason for this...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, I should clarify; I'm referring specifically to firefighing and the police. I realise that many countries do not have a nationalised health service...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Won't that be wonderful! Entrusting your life to people who's primary concern isn't saving lives but making money.
    It makes people get results because its such a powerful incentive thanks to human nature. Loom at the state of the NHS, which is more concerned with keeping its monopoly than it is about lives. Every other week there is some article about the NHS failing, whether it be giving people the wrong operation, using stillborn babies organs without parents permission or a cancer patient who has had their operation repeatedly put back. These damage the reputation of NHS, but people have no where to tuen to therefore they do not improve. With competition they do.

    Are you suggesting wealthy people are wrong to go private, after all according to you those doctors only care about money. If that had such bad results why do people who have the money go to them?


    If you need evidence of how privatisation damages service, consider the absurd situation we currently have on the railways, where high speed trains are forced to run behind slow stopping trains because private companies, in their desire to make a quick buck, decided to remove the rails that would have otherwise allowed them to overtake. In the case of trains this means uncomfortable journies- in that of emergancy serivces it would mean lost lives.
    Before nationalisation on average more people died per year than they do now. Today trains are safer. I agree trains have a number of problems but privatisation isnt to blame rather the way it was privatised, it was done too quickly as opposed to gradually.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaftPunk)
    Sorry, I should clarify; I'm referring specifically to firefighing and the police. I realise that many countries do not have a nationalised health service...
    I think they have very successful private fire stations in South Africa.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaftPunk)
    Sorry, I should clarify; I'm referring specifically to firefighing and the police. I realise that many countries do not have a nationalised health service...

    Your criticism does not apply to that of the police as i support a state police, not a privatised police force.

    Secondly in regards to firefighters the points i make with regards to the NHS are more or less relevant. Competition produces results. Some may argue that a privatised firefighting force would not be practical, but look at the AA it covers the whole nation and is private company.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Since when did was the majority right because it is the majority?
    Find me a better system of government that democracy then, that is why we listen to the majority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Find me a better system of government that democracy then, that is why we listen to the majority.
    :banghead: I will not make rude personal comments,I will not make rude personal comments, I will not make rude personal comments.
    Ok, I'm alright now.
    Dude, there is a difference between democracy and forcing the majority's views on everyone else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Find me a better system of government that democracy then, that is why we listen to the majority.
    A liberal democracy in which restrictions are placed on all so that a ****** of the majorty may never come about.

    If the majorty said it was right to kill all muslims and jews, i would oppose this and argue aginst the right of the majority to have their views implemented. The majorty rules but within the framework of liberty i.e.people may have the maximum freedom that is their freedom ends where another persons face begins. I am basically advocating Mill's conception of democracy. See 'On Liberty'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Tomorrow2Day]You haven't addressed the argument that the existence of social capital and the necessity of the state to private capital mean that to speak of taxation as if it is the taking of private capital is incoherent.

    I have countered your argument. If you fully understand my arguments you would couter them but you do not your merely repeat.

    You haven't addressed the argument that since the principle that murder is wrong means that the criminal is not kidnapped, the principle that taxation is necessary to the existence of an enabling state means that taxation is not theft. Why is the criminal not kidnapped? Because his imprisonment is considered necessary to society. Why is the taxed man not robbed? Because his taxation is considered necessary to society.
    My point is that it is not neccessary. I have shown that negative liberty does not require postive liberty. Why would it? You prvide no argument. Your argument is tax is neccessary because it is considered neccessary. I show this not to be the case in my past posts. You arguing something because it is argued for, this is an illogical and circular 'argument'.


    You also have failed to see the point of the argument from theft under law. It is not saying that taxation is necessarily good - it is saying that taxation is not theft because theft is the unlawful taking of private property. Taxation is the lawful taking of "private property" - theft is a legal concept, so while the law is not right because it's right, it is law because it's law. If taxation is legal, taxation is not theft.
    At present it is true that tax is legal in the eyes of the law as i recognised in my early posts in this thread. But that does not make it right as i have shown and you have failed to counter.

    If there is no such thing as society and the concept of a collective is unacceptable, do you reject democracy? If you don't, how can you possibly reconcile its inevitable tyranny of the majority with the unacceptability of compulsory taxation? If a system of compulsory taxation and positive liberty cannot be enforced on all, why can a system of negative liberty and voluntary public funding?
    I accept democracy but a liberal from i.e a Millean conception. Democracy does not inevitably lead to tryanny of the majorty if each is given fundametal rights which no one including the majorty may interfere. If you beleive democracy should be whatever most say than that is an immoral system and i reject it. Negative liberty can be 'enforced' on all unlike positive liberty because it does not require an individual to do anything, rather to abstain from possible acts. Furthermore your argument is a double edged sword because it can be used to defend my proposal just as much, thus your not offering anything superior, in fact in my opinion, inferior as it relies on coercion. This is wrong because it takes away peoples abilty to preserve themselves and as i have stated life is my critieria (see past posts for why).


    If monopoly is undesirable, so is the unregulated free market - the concentration of economic power is its inevitable result.

    The sole source of harmful monopolies is the government, which is the only agency that has the power to physically force competitors out of business, i.e., it is the only agency that has the power to outlaw (i.e., regulate) competition. As evidence, witness the United States Post Office, which makes it illegal for anyone to charge less than 34¢ for first class mail (one entrepreneur attempted to compete by charging 5¢ -- he did not get far). Other examples include the East India Company of the 17th and 18th centuries, the American Pacific Railroads of the 19th century, and the AMA's monopoly over the prescription of medicine in the 20th century.

    Only the government can physically force its competitors out of markets, or establish harmful monopolies through the granting of state "franchises". This is, of course, a clear violation of individual rights, since such state "franchises" prevent those who do not have "political pull" to enter the state regulated industry. In essence the "state franchise" is an insurmountable barrier to entry--and entry created by the the men in government. No businessmen (or government) can do this under capitalism -- only is such a feat possible in a mixed economy, or "totalitarian economy".

    The only "force" a capitalist can use to put his competitors out of business, is the "force" of providing a better product at a lower price as judged by those who purchase his products -- such is the "power" of the businessmen. If this is how he achieves his monopoly, then it is in no way harmful. Just because something is a "monopoly" -- a single agent in a specified area -- does not make it evil. A proper government has a monopoly on the use of force, and it is an essential good to capitalism.


    Finally, I paraphrased, not quoted, Bentham. If Victorian classical liberalism wasn't dead, we wouldn't be calling it Victorian.
    That was your original mistake, you should have put the phrase in quotations, however i did not want to point that out as it would have been rather rude. You should have used quotations as we are discussing political theory and in this field it is widely recognised as his phrase. After all if you were an author of a political theory book you'd put it in quotations. Finally just because a name denotes an age does not mean its ideas are dead, Greek political thought is from a different age but would you also say that is dead?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    im not as clever as this bloke but this what I do know.

    Businesses main purpose is to create profit for its stockbrokers, the only reason they give a competitivie service is absolutely nothing to do with their concern for us, but that they might get put outa business by another competing company.

    On the other hand government's main purpose is to serve the people, money has got nothing to do with it after all they get the same paychecks with however they run the country (within reason). Their incentive is making the majority happy, not ther minority (business included) as this will keep them their jobs.

    I know what I prefer and trust, if governemnt are restricting businesses its not because thy are evil and just feel like it, its because they have though about what will benefit the people. I dont really see how people can defend businesses they take the piss out of all of us with amazing profits, they get a very lucky deal in the UK and the US.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Businesses main purpose is to create profit for its stockbrokers, the only reason they give a competitivie service is absolutely nothing to do with their concern for us, but that they might get put outa business by another competing company.
    Their desire for profit leads to concern for bour interests and wishes. In a free market a deal only occurs if one party is selling something and another wants to buy, there is no coercion. Trade would not occur if both parties did not agree. Why do you care about the motive if the result is very benefical?
    After all you surely agree that cars, computers, t.v's all benefit people.

    On the other hand government's main purpose is to serve the people, money has got nothing to do with it after all they get the same paychecks with however they run the country (within reason). Their incentive is making the majority happy, not ther minority (business included) as this will keep them their jobs.
    The state desries control not making people happy. The way to make the people 'happy' is by keeping good relations with businesses and freeing them of red tape and tax, this is because if businesses are succesful they produce economic wealth for all, for example more jobs. You should see my past posts for further information on this. Governments are concerned with power as they are made up of people. Max Weber's Public Choice theory argues that red tape leads to more red tape and more government control as it is in the interests of government to have more control. I think your view of human nature is too optimistic, man wants power and than more as Hobbes argues. We all know this after all you lock your doors, why? Because someone will want your possessions. Man is naturally selfish and joing government does not take away these natural urges. Rather a free market prevents a concentration of power, it makes people fulfil their desries by fulfiling others desries. In a system of big government, why must the government do what others want? Because they'll get voted out. But who will replace them? Another party which accepts a very similar level amount of state interferance. 'Whoever you vote for, the government gets in' is a very apt quote. Big government has a monopoly of power and thus has no reason to help make people 'happy'. Even if they did know what happiness was in the first place, surely its better to let people decide what happiness is for them and so use their money as they wish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just chipping in to say that the idea of voluntary taxation, which came up a few pages ago, is hilarious. Rich corporations and individuals already exploit loopholes in tax law as best they can. If offered the chance to escape taxation entirely, you can't say they wouldn't take it.

    And how would the military function under such a system?

    "Better stop building that aircraft carrier lads, we've had a bad collection this year"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Haven't seen any of these charitable contributions solve famines in Africa or world poverty or the various other charitable events. So why would you think voluntary contributions could possibly work ?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just chipping in to say that the idea of voluntary taxation, which came up a few pages ago, is hilarious. Rich corporations and individuals already exploit loopholes in tax law as best they can. If offered the chance to escape taxation entirely, you can't say they wouldn't take it.
    My proposal is black and white. No insurance = no right to take the other to court. Its that simple, there is no loophole just like there is no loophole for murderers.

    People take advantage of loopholes because the government is too imcompetent to prevent them. With my proposal so much of the governments focus would be on this that any loopholes would be done away with.

    Furtermore the reason why people take advantage of loopholes is because they feel hard done by with 40% of wealth being taken. People can see the sense in paying a vol certain amount to maintain the framework which ensures their wealth and protection. If its moral people will side with it.

    Also many the times these loopholes you refer to are merely moving one's funds to a low tax zone such as Monaco. This would not happen if there was no comulsory tax as this would be even better - a zero tax zone.

    And how would the military function under such a system?

    "Better stop building that aircraft carrier lads, we've had a bad collection this year"
    How can you have such faith in the abilty of governments, but such little faith in the elements which make them up - people.

    People would pay because:
    1) Today people insure contracts, theres no reason for them not to do it as they can certainly afford it as they dont pay any tax
    2) Buinesses would relocate to the UK and so more investment would occur than at present
    3) Businesses would be easier to set up thus more contracts would occur. This would happen as taxes or red tape would not be a disincentive anymore.
    4) If businessmen were benefting from a zero tax zone they would not allow another country to invade and take over. They would offer financail support in order to protect their interests.
    5) In a globalised economy the idea of warring nations is declining all the time. We have nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent as well as alliances.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    Haven't seen any of these charitable contributions solve famines in Africa or world poverty or the various other charitable events. So why would you think voluntary contributions could possibly work ?
    Because:

    1) Corrupt regimes offer a disincetive. The former president of Kenya stole 4 billion dollars of aid. Why should people donate to prop up a corrupt regime.
    2) World poverty continues because many African coutries have protectionist policies, they are not embracing globalisation and so are suffering. The East Asian economies are and as a result they are very wealthy.
    3) Africa does not have a culture of enterprise or stable property rights (look at Zimbabwe and the white farmers) thus why should businesses locate there if they fear their wealth could be taken by the government anytimes?
    4) Your argument supports mine as you recognise people give to chairty. Imagine what people would give if they actaully saw results? People have given for years but there is still mass poverty due to corruption and protectionism. In order to stop this a coutry needs democracy and transparency, which the UK has, thus we never see mass chairty corruption scandals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    STOP READING THE DAILY MAIL DUDE!!!

    u sound like the conservatives i always debate with on the Bush Country forum. Youd be right at home there objectivism, you should look it up.

    i think we have to agree to disagree. I think free market is an evil sysytem of corruption, disrespect and mass inequalitys (like America).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ]STOP READING THE DAILY MAIL DUDE!!!
    I assure you i do not read the Daily Mail, rather the Telegraph.

    u sound like the conservatives i always debate with on the Bush Country forum. Youd be right at home there objectivism, you should look it up.
    Neither am i a fan of Bush, he is a supporter of big government i am not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the torygraph, the mail, theyre all the same. Opinionated rubbish.

    Ive read the telegraph, they cleverly spin issues to the right wing cause. Good sport suppliment though!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Of course they'd have a job. We dont have state bakers but we still have bakers. Thats because there is a demand for them, just like there will always be a demand for firefighters. Thus private companies will offer their services, just like the AA does when people are in a car emergency.
    Ok so they may still have a job, but I assuming it would be insurance based? So you'd let someones house burn down because they had no insurance?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So you'd let someones house burn down because they had no insurance?
    1) Many would be funded by charties for the reasons ive suggested before, thus even those few who choose not to insure would still be covered in practice.
    2) If someone's house or flat is on fire and its spreading to houses/flats with insurance than the fire will be put out for all even thouse without insurance.
    3) People will get insurance. Its just common sense. If the dont thats their fault and i cant be held responsible for their stupidity. Why does their lack of reason legitimise theft?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,725

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.