What would happen if everything were privatized?

In case you're wondering why we're only getting snide remarks rather than a discussion about the benefits, it's kind of like asking a satanist to discuss the benefits of their beliefs. While they may sound beneficial in the satanist's head, they can't reasonably be considered beneficial unless you hold certain mythical beliefs.

 

Or it could be because a genuine discussion of ideas is not something that ever happens here. Just ****-slinging while repeating bumper sticker slogans of the Democratic and Republican parties.

As to the OP's question. That is a huge topic, which would be difficult to fit even into a book, much less a post on a basketball BBS. However, if you really want to know the answer to your question about living in a free society, there are many free resources out there for you to learn if your inquiry is genuine.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, by Murray Rothbard (pdf)
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, by Hans Herman-Hoppe (pdf)
Libertarianism Today, by Jacob Huebert (pdf, only the first 40+ pages of the book)

I would recommend starting with Libertarianism Today, just because it's so recent. The pdf linked to, while not the entire book, answers what is libertarianism and how it is different from conservatism and liberalism.

If that brief introduction gets your interest, then check out the entire book. The topics covered in that book but not in the pdf are economy, drugs, healthcare, education, gun rights, the court system, peace and war, intellectual property, and voting.

Or you can read the entire For a New Liberty. That is also great. Only problem is it came out in the 70s and the examples used might be considered a little dated. But the author is basically Mr Libertarian.

Hoppe is great but isn't my favorite. Still, I included it because it's out there for free and there is a shirt of him that goes well with this topic.

 

Free market is something that has always sounded very good in theory. Just like communism. But it's pretty clear that historically, every time we tilt towards a much more free market economy, horrible things happen and people then, ironically, would look towards the government to bail them out.

It's always a cycle with these things. When government control grows, people b!tch about it. Then everything loosen up, people start doing selfish things at cost of others, because we're all selfish bastards at heart. Economy tanks, and people then start b!tching about the government letting things go bad, asking the government to help clean up the mess. Rinse. Repeat.

 

In your 'pretty clear' history books you should look up the small country of the United States of America.

 

That's not true at all, but is basically the general belief held by many. This is kind of what I meant by people just sticking to bumper sticker slogans.

The actual series of events is much more complicated, and is again something for a thick book to delve into. The rise and fall of civilizations cannot be accurately summed up in a couple sentences.

In this case, I'd recommend Ludwig von Mises' Human Action or Murray Rothbard's Man, State, and Economy. Another by Mises, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, would also be a good choice.

 

This. I consider myself a free-market thinking in the mold of Mises/Rothbard, but a system that is 100% unregulated would have severely degraded markets. In other words, markets don't function well without the rule of law. Without it, raising capital, making investments, and holding people to their word would all be difficult.

 

You must not have heard of standard oil or AT&T. The US hasn't been a freemarket for a long time.

 

Speaking to what I know, on wildfires, there would be a profit motive instead of a safety motive. Even under the best of circumstances, some fires will take out some homes or businesses or even lives. If you have a profit motive that provides an incentive to keep you from getting the best equipment, providing the best training, hiring the most qualified people... well, you're probably not going to do an adequate job of protecting life and property. It's impossible to be perfect in response to fires, but sins of omission are rarely seen as it is not tolerated within the culture. With private enterprise, and most likely a huge defense-type contracting firm like Bechtel or General Dynamics running things, you would undoubtedly see the culture of the organization change to reflect the contractor's culture and that would, I am certain, lead to an increase in bad decisions before, during, and after incidents.

 

Look no further than the mining & petrochemical industries

 

Privatization of certain social services in my opinion would be a great idea. As long as contracts were given out based on merit and efficiency first with cost savings and such being important as well as there is always the danger of cronyism in these situations.

I don't think many people believe we should pay out of pocket for 911 or for the fire department, but that if government paid outside competitive groups for this service it would be done more efficiently because the fear of losing the lucrative contracts would force quality with marginal profit margins.

Just as the government doesn't produce its own coffee, automobiles or does its own building, this would be an extension of that.

Imagine for a second that the DPS or Traffic Courts had the efficiency of McDonalds?? How many hours and hours do people wait at the DPS, the Passport offices or at the post office to see unmotivated sloth-like employees provide no friendliness, customer service or focus on allowing us to leave within a few hours.

I think private industry can do better in many areas, though certainly not all.

 

You are all over the place with this post.

First, what does this sentence mean?

Merit and efficiency are first? Sometimes, they are antithetical, particularly when people have different views of efficiency. Does efficiency mean streamlining processes so that the work is done more effectively or does it mean doing more with less so there are ore profits? Then you mention cost savings should be important as well. Study after study says the Feds do things more cost effectively than private enterprise. And really, the way the sentence is worded, you put cost savings as almost as important as merit and efficiency.

After mentioning merit, you then say this:

OK, so now we see what you mean by efficient. And how does one have a lucrative contract with marginal profit margins?

That's literally true I guess, but those things are used to support the stuff government legitimately provides. How many kids would die if we had no seatbelt laws? How many people would get sick without food inspection? How much would commerce suffer if there weren't accurate weather reports? How many ships would run aground without ocean floor mapping? How many planes would crash into each other without air traffic control? How many bridges would collapse without inspectors?

OK, I took a second and it was a bad vision. Do you want someone in oncoming traffic to have the knowledge of driving that came from a driver's test that took as long as it takes McDonalds to make a Quarter-Pounder (2.5 minutes)? Do you want the Traffic Court Jusdge to make a decisions based on evidence he has considered for as long as McDonalds takes to pour a cup of coffee?

The problem with these Con diatribes is that there is an absolute refusal to look at government as a whole. How many DPS examples have we seen? You know why Conservatives hate going to get a drivers license? It's because it is one of the few places they have to go where all of society is present. Rich people, poor people, white people, black and brown people, educated people and dropouts, Kwik-E-Mart cashiers and accountants, lawyers and druggies (I know, that may not be the best contrast). Conservatives hate dealing with the rest of society and they hate having to wait in line behind their inferiors to talk to an inferior. I actually like going because I love watching how uncomfortable some people are when they are exposed to something beyond their gated community.

Anyway, at the Fed level, the average employee is more educated and has more responsibilities than the average private sector employee. You can't think that just because you have a certain kind of experience while getting your drivers license renewed that the experience is applicable to all of government. We're talking engineers, nuclear physicists, biologists, air frame inspectors, meteorologists, astronauts, and a host of other jobs that require a high degree of education and professionalism.

 

dmv wud b way mor faster

 

It means doing an adequate job at the lowest bid.

What incentive do the Feds have to keep costs down?

If seatbelts have value, why is the mandate necessary? (Answer: they do and it isn't, for adults at least).

Quality control is not the exclusive province of the state. Customers demand it whether the state does or not.

If only there were a mechanism to supply a solution for all of these demands...

 

But, guys: I thought you couldn't prove a negative.

 

There are certainly some things that could & should be considered for privatization. By the same token, there are some services where the profit motive should never be a factor.

Excerpted from a larger study:

As a long time state employee who was inside for this debacle in Texas, let me tell you it was a cluster**** of epic proportions and many people lined their pockets in the travesty.

 

More people should read The Jungle. I think that book should be required reading whenever someone reads Atlas Shrugged.

 

Or we could see a lot of corruption and waste like we see with military contracts that are farmed out.

 

that's only relative to private enterprise

can you imagine if the government tried to manufacture their own weapons?

would be like that Top Gear episode where they test drive old Soviet cars

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QaAf8Z75mTQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I don't need books. Just tell me which country privatize most of their stuff and become more successful because of it. If I see with my own eyes a deregulated wall street tearing down world economy, making it harder to find jobs for me and my friends and families, convince me that the road to a better tomorrow is even more deregulation

Keep in mind I most certainly am not the 1%