Privatization

[eugenekop]

I've heard a lot about how we should remove the central bank, social security, health care, but I never heard in Libertarian cycles about privatization. For instance prisons can be privatized, some municipal activities such as garbage collection can be subcontracted to private companies. National park can be privatized as well. Basically any service provided by the government can be privatized. What is your opinion about that?

 

[Elwar]

Garbage collection can be better than subcontracted, it can be left to the free market as in many communities. I pay $10 per month for my garbage service and they're great.

As for privatizing. It does allow for at least some competition if done right. Though it is often overcome by kickbacks and good ol' boy networks if things aren't transparent.

Gary Johnson privatized the prison system in New Mexico and saved the state a lot of money.

 

[Epic]

the word privatization is tricky because some people mean "outcontract to private firms" and some people mean "the service is provided by individuals in the private sector interacting among themselves voluntarily"

In other words, is the relationship:

person <---> person

OR

person ------> government -------> politically connected persons

 

[silverhandorder]

I am all for full privatization. However big part of the forum are only against ending money printing and national programs. I don't fault them.

 

[farrar]

I would be all for privatizing the fed (making it truly independent), and allowing competing currencies. This would be a good way (I think) to ween us off fed dependency, and limit macroeconomic controls.

 

[98Tokay]

I am indifferent to privatization in the form of governments subcontracting out tyranny.

Abolition of government and subsequent private provision of necessary services though... I'm a big fan.

 

[TonySutton]

When I lived in NC the county had private collection. There were several companies to choose from. The city had contracted service but we received better service in the county.

County was person ---> person

 

[charrob]

the word privatization is tricky because some people mean "outcontract to private firms" and some people mean "the service is provided by individuals in the private sector interacting among themselves voluntarily"

In other words, is the relationship:

person <---> person

OR

person ------> government -------> politically connected persons

exactly. Contractors working for the federal government charge *much* more for their work than if the federal gov't hires employees to do that work inhouse. Examples are defense contractors, as well as contractors actually working in government buildings. There has been made much about the salaries of federal workers: but in many cases these are highly-skilled employees whose counterparts in defense/other gov't contracted jobs are paid much more.

 

[fisharmor]

I never heard in Libertarian cycles about privatization.

Well, stick around and you'll get a regular bellyful of those of us who have made the leap to not believing government necessary for anything, anywhere, ever.
(First!)

For instance prisons can be privatized, some municipal activities such as garbage collection can be subcontracted to private companies. National park can be privatized as well. Basically any service provided by the government can be privatized. What is your opinion about that?

Prisons are something like 90% full of people who don't belong there. When you privatize a prison under the existing sham legal system, you're creating politically connected corporations which have an interest in keeping as many people incarcerated as possible.

So, looks like I have a new reason not to like GJ!

If garbage collection wasn't state subsidized you'd see much more green living going on.
We started composting last year when we started our garden, and immediately noticed how little "garbage" we produce.
If we had a wood-burning stove, and stowed all the paper to convert to heat, we'd produce one bag a week, and could probably do with biweekly pickup.
This is only common sense stuff. If we had extra disposable income (less taxes) we'd have that stove.

National parks I'm kind of torn on. I'd have been against their founding since they were really only put in place so that common folk had a place to go outside and would therefore stay out of billionaires' playgrounds.
However I think with an immediate privatization they'd disappear overnight and get turned into pressboard estates.
I think the first thing that would need to happen is the privatization of cities. Once they became viable centers of population again, there would be much less pressure to create such monstrosities.

 

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

For the most part I support privatization of most government services.

However, I do not support private prisons. That doesn't mean I don't support private contractors providing health services or food services inside the prison. I just don't like the idea of contractors carrying out a state sentence. I think there's something inherently unconstitutional about that. If someone is sentenced to the custody of the state, the state should be responsible for that person, not an outside vendor.

 

[Agorism]

CATO Institute and Mises opposed Bush's privatization plans if I recall.

 

[dannno]

The problem with government controlling all of these supposedly 'private' services is that they can prop up monopolies. That's why it is better left to the free market where individuals can voluntarily decide to use the service or not.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Privatization is a fine line in the crone, corrupt, fascist-corporatist controlled country.

The latest debacle is DHS's Michael Chertoff and the Millimeter and Backscatter X-Ray machines... same for Prisons, and no one needs to look further than the corrutpion and collusion of the ARRA theft Act... it went to crone political donors and politically connected.

true privatization yes... crone corrupt political privation, NO

 

[fisharmor]

true privatization yes... crone corrupt political privation, NO

You know, this is a good point.
In most cases I think that government just needs to abolish whatever alphabet soup agency takes care of X service, abolish whatever regulation they've created, and get the hell out of the way.

I never thought about it, but government saying that they're going to sell or contract the entirety of a road to a specific company is bullshit. If they auctioned the entire thing that'd be a different story, or if they broke it into lots. But I think in most cases it does end up being cronyism, which is not the point.

 

[eugenekop]

A lot of services can be partially privatized. For example electrical utility companies can be privatized (as they did in California). It goes like this. The government auctions for some service and the highest bidder wins. Then in order to create competition the next year the government auction this service again. It can be anything really, any kind of infrastructure project and maybe even things like firemen departments and police. Naturally governments should be very small, but even in these conditions a lot of privatization can go on.

 

[fisharmor]

A lot of services can be partially privatized. For example electrical utility companies can be privatized (as they did in California).

This is not privatization, this is fascism.
The electric company has the state put laws into place that destroy private property, and in some cases make life unlivable.

This morning my father-in-law was getting ready for an upper GI and had to hang out at my house to poop colite all morning, because his has a fuckmothering 11' deep ditch in the front yard as they try to replace his sewer line (which is only 30 years old), and they're cutting off his sewage service today.

Is he going to get compensated for having to relocate himself while he has health problems? Is he going to have new sod put down over the mud pit in his front yard? Is the sewer company going to replace his bushes?

No, no, and no, and turning over control over these lines to a fascist company does nothing to solve the fundamental problems with how this was done in the first place.

Same is true of the electric company. They get to shit all over your property whenever something needs an update, they don't compensate you, it's all done under color of law, and it doesn't make a damned bit of difference who it is that's doing it, or whether it's a fascist company or a socialist agency.

The damage being done in those systems has nothing to do with who is pulling the strings.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I would be all for privatizing the fed (making it truly independent), and allowing competing currencies. This would be a good way (I think) to ween us off fed dependency, and limit macroeconomic controls.

Would you accept Goldman Sachs and Bank of America being in charge of the money supply (private banking in charge of what the Fed does)?

 

[TCE]

I would be all for privatizing the fed (making it truly independent), and allowing competing currencies. This would be a good way (I think) to ween us off fed dependency, and limit macroeconomic controls.

The Fed is technically private right now, so by your definition, we could keep the Fed but allow competing currencies. That is the equivalent of bringing a gun to a knife fight. The Fed would be backing the USD and the other currencies would be against it. I prefer abolition of the Fed entirely, then competing currencies will be fine. Heck, I'd prefer a commodity standard over what we have now.

 

[mczerone]

I've heard a lot about how we should remove the central bank, social security, health care, but I never heard in Libertarian cycles about privatization. For instance prisons can be privatized, some municipal activities such as garbage collection can be subcontracted to private companies. National park can be privatized as well. Basically any service provided by the government can be privatized. What is your opinion about that?

If you "never heard in Libertarian cycles about privatization", I'd think you haven't listened much.

There is no difference between a central planner and a private firm granted a monopoly privilege. So if by "privatization" you mean open up a field to competitors, sure. If, OTOH, you mean fascist enrichment of politically favored private firms, then no, libertarians are not for that.

 

[eugenekop]

Of course I do not advocate monopoly. Companies should be subcontracted for a limited period by a government auction on the basis of the best bidder gets the job.