Privatisation and deregulation: ?????

[Vuk11]

What are the arguments for privatisation and deregulation in depth?

Privatisation: 

So the argument against goes:
"Health care, water and *insert utilitiy/'essential service* are there to help people not make a profit! A state monopoly can provide a service at cost and a business will provide it at a higher cost (cost + profit). Business will shaft the consumer and more importantly the poor"

 

What are the practical arguments for privatisation?

 

We tend to here things along the lines of:
"governments have a horrible decision making progress and this makes them inefficient and always lagging behind business. Competition drives down prices and increases efficiency!"

 

Then it just goes back and forth about X was privatized in Y country and now they're better off but X was also privatized in Z country and the state had to intervene.

 

I guess what I'm asking is what is the logic behind the above, that makes a cost + profit business' better then a "cost only" state mandated monopoly on an essential service? We have the initial argument and evidence/counter evidence but what is the logic that explains it?

 

 

Deregulation:

 

What makes deregulating something cheaper?
How does it allow for more business and more employment?
 

Obviously people have less licensing and paperwork to worry about but what is the actual cost of regulation VS a self regulating market?

Is it that business currently pays lawyers/accountants/auditors? 
Is it the cost of complying with government agencies that check products? (in that case is the only argument that a competitive market for agencies to check products/services cheaper/more efficient) 

Is it all about barriers erected for small business or the self employed? What barriers exactly? Just licensing? 

[Magenta]

What need is there for utilitarian arguments when we have moral arguments?

[...]

.

[Vuk11]

Because people skip/ignore the moral arguments in a lot of places.Because if people say that private is cheaper/more efficient as an argument point we've kind of got to prove it, so far evidence swings both ways, I'm just curious of the logic.

[Daniel Unplugged]

What are the arguments for privatisation and deregulation in depth?Privatisation: So the argument against goes:"Health care, water and *insert utilitiy/'essential service* are there to help people not make a profit! A state monopoly can provide a service at cost and a business will provide it at a higher cost (cost + profit). Business will shaft the consumer and more importantly the poor"

"...help people not make a profit." - Making a profit is a good thing."A state monopoly can provide a service at cost." - Usually they run a profit or a loss. Also, profits usually get reinvested in the business to increase production of the underlying product. If the state is to provide the same service a business would, they must also invest in new plants and equipment. Whether the funds come from a company's profit or from new taxes, they come straight from the consumer/the public. The net effect of this point is therefore zero."...business will provide it at a higher cost." - If a government monopoly chooses to charge prices at cost, and not tax the extra money needed for new investment, this may be somewhat true in the short term, but since there is no new funding for new investment, production and productivity cannot increase. Also, since monopolies, and especially government monopolies are inefficient due to the lack of market forces, in the long term it is near impossible to provide the product at a price anywhere near that which would be provided by a free market."... business will shaft the consumer..." - New investment can only come at the expense of consumption, whether it is by taxes or profit. "... and more importantly the poor." - Last I heard, business charge poor people and rich people the same price, there is no poor person surcharge.I really don't feel the need to make the arguments here against state monopolies, since the arguments for it presented here, are so weak.

[dsayers]

Because people skip/ignore the moral arguments in a lot of places.Because if people say that private is cheaper/more efficient as an argument point we've kind of got to prove it, so far evidence swings both ways, I'm just curious of the logic.

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of drawing a nation into an unwinable war for the purpose of draining their economy, eh? Spending time on utilitarian arguments ahead of the moral argument is exactly this.

 

To elaborate on what Daniel said, profit isn't only good, it's inescapable. Each post in this thread was made for profit. Our every autonomic breath is profitable.

 

Finally, I just wanted to echo what Shem said. There's a huge difference between regulation and coercive regulation.

[Vuk11]

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of drawing a nation into an unwinable war for the purpose of draining their economy, eh? Spending time on utilitarian arguments ahead of the moral argument is exactly this.

Try telling people that are debating private VS public that taxation is theft.It goes straight into laughter and about the poor. Most would only accept it if it's proved to be better.I'm fine with presenting a moral argument against the state as a whole and democracy and what not but the same argument can't be used directly in a debate of Private vs Public.

[Think Free]

Try telling people that are debating private VS public that taxation is theft.It goes straight into laughter and about the poor. Most would only accept it if it's proved to be better.I'm fine with presenting a moral argument against the state as a whole and democracy and what not but the same argument can't be used directly in a debate of Private vs Public.

 

I rarely say "taxation is theft." Instead, just talk through the issue like this. "So, let's recognize that when we make a law about something, it means that people who don't agree with that law are now going to be forced, by people with guns, to follow that law, or else be thrown into prison. Do you think it's ethical for anyone to use violence against those who disagree with them on this point? Or can we agree that whatever solution we can come up with needs to be peaceful?" Try that. It works better with people with whom you have some rapport.

[dsayers]

Try telling people that are debating private VS public that taxation is theft.It goes straight into laughter and about the poor. Most would only accept it if it's proved to be better.

 

Lack of definition of "better" aside, what this translates to is, "I'm okay with people stealing from everybody on my behalf so long as I agree with how it's spent." Make an effort to get this directly from them. If that doesn't shock them into revisiting their position, I would say it's time to move on. I don't want to talk to people who CONSCIOUSLY advocate the initiation of the use of force.

[ribuck]

So the argument against goes:"Health care, water and *insert utilitiy/'essential service* are there to help people not make a profit! A state monopoly can provide a service at cost and a business will provide it at a higher cost (cost + profit). Business will shaft the consumer and more importantly the poor"

 

You can say to these people that the state, if it provides a better service, needn't fear businesses competing with it and therefore doesn't need a legislated monopoly.

[Magenta]

Try telling people that are debating private VS public that taxation is theft.It goes straight into laughter and about the poor. Most would only accept it if it's proved to be better.I'm fine with presenting a moral argument against the state as a whole and democracy and what not but the same argument can't be used directly in a debate of Private vs Public.

FDR-503 is just the medicine for this problem: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_503_The_Optimism_Of_Euphemisms.mp3

[Vuk11]

Thanks for the replies guys.

The reason why I am persistent in bridging dialogue is because...well most of these people are baby boomers and have a very set in stone view of the world and it's really interesting how you can lead some right where you want them like a cat.

 

I agree with Think Free in how to approach it, makes sense with the against me argument I've heard Stefan talk about.

Obviously it gets to a point where further dialogue is pointless.

 

Here is a response:

"Well explained.There is no party standing up for small business in this country (as far as I can see).The liberal party should be a party of small business people with good ideas on innovation, drive, reward for effort,productivity.Instead we find political staffers, lifetime members of the machinery of government.Its bad enough that labor is staffed by unionists hell bent on sucking small business dry.Its bad enough that the greens have never run a farm, mine or business .But for the liberal party to desert its roots.Hopeless."

 

I know there are a group of people that feel this way on those forums, so I was able to point out that the Libertarian Micro Party the LDP (Liberal Democrats) actually called the liberals out on not being classically liberal, they are pro small business and the only party AFAIK to offer a massive reform of the way we do things towards smaller government and economic freedom.

 

This also opened up discussion on health care and how the countries that have a high degree of economic freedom are among those rated as the best health care in the world. So that link between how an economically free prosperous economy is able to pay for such social programs, I really don't think people make this link in general and it's a powerful point.

 

I was also able to point out that the LDP is portrayed in the media not for it's economic reforms and protection of individual rights but for the usual media smoke screens of "marijuana and guns!". Not many Australians know there are parties that aren't the big 3 big government ones. (Labor/Liberal/Greens, most people view micro parties as pointless loons like the Sex and Shooting parties)

 

Though I'm not one for political reform, I'd have to side with Stef on changing the family unit, spreading this information about economic freedom is important IMO. 

[Daniel Unplugged]

In reference to the above post, I want to offer some information for non-Australian readers.

 

The liberal party is center-right, somewhat religious and somewhat pro business.

 

The labor party is center-left, mostly athiest, pro union and anti free market.

 

The greens are very socialist.

 

The liberal and labor parties take turns at running the government, sometimes in coalitions.

[greekredemption]

What need is there for utilitarian arguments when we have moral arguments?

Well even utilitarians consider the appeal to utility to be in itself a moral argument.

[TheRobin]

The question private vs public makes no sense. "public" is just a shortcut for " a lot of private people". So it's really about a group of private people vs another group of private people.

Except the ones who call themselves "government " are usually not responisble for what they do, cause they do it in the name of someone else (i.e. the "public").

 

So the question is, why are politicians better businessman then people who actually are businessman and earn a living that way? (Or why should ONE private guy have control over an entire industry as opposed to allowing any private guy to try and provide the service as best as they can?)

[dsayers]

Well even utilitarians consider the appeal to utility to be in itself a moral argument.

 

I don't see any substance in this sentence. If I considered chocolate to be a good source of whole grain, would that mean anything?

[greekredemption]

I don't see any substance in this sentence. If I considered chocolate to be a good source of whole grain, would that mean anything?

 

To its proponents, utilitarianism is a moral argument. It's not a lot of substance, but there is some at least...

[Daniel Unplugged]

The utilitarian principle, says that it is moral to harm an innocent person, if the benefits of that harm to other people are greater in magnitude. Harming an innocent person is never moral, and is always immoral.

[greekredemption]

The utilitarian principle, says that it is moral to harm an innocent person, if the benefits of that harm to other people are greater in magnitude. Harming an innocent person is never moral, and is always immoral.

In its crudest form, yes. That is not the most common expression of utilitarianism, though, to be fair. For instance, some utilitarians emphasise average utility among a population, and others derive an almost rights-based argument (a la Mill).I do concede that is how most libertarians characterise utilitarianism. Nozick and his utility monster for example.

[Daniel Unplugged]

In its crudest form, yes. That is not the most common expression of utilitarianism, though, to be fair. For instance, some utilitarians emphasise average utility among a population, and others derive an almost rights-based argument (a la Mill).I do concede that is how most libertarians characterise utilitarianism. Nozick and his utility monster for example.

I didn't know that it was common for libertarians to describe utilitarianism this way. I made it up on the spot, but I suppose it figures.

[greekredemption]

I didn't know that it was common for libertarians to describe utilitarianism this way. I made it up on the spot, but I suppose it figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster in case you were interested

[Daniel Unplugged]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster in case you were interested

Thanks

[tasmlab]

As a side note, "privatization", in current practice, more often about making something fascist and not private.

 

Texas recently privatized their electric companies, but the govt told them what they had to do, established fixed monopolies, gifted the hundreds of millions, etc.  The prison and military industries are just as 'private' with the government being their sole market and customer.

 

I've found this admission to be appealing to my lefty friends as a starting point for discussion.

[Bulbasaur]

Agree with tasmlab. The "privatization" that's usually discussed is just government outsourcing; the government becomes a "customer" of private contractors, paying them with taxed/printed/borrowed money to provide some service in lieu of a government agency doing it. This basically merges the profit imperative of a corporation with the coercive power and lack of accountability of the state, so it's no wonder that the outcomes end up being generally worse even than the merely bureaucratic alternative. Of course, this bears no resemblance to a real private market where individuals make voluntary decisions about how to best spend their own money. 

[st434u]

I guess what I'm asking is what is the logic behind the above, that makes a cost + profit business' better then a "cost only" state mandated monopoly on an essential service? We have the initial argument and evidence/counter evidence but what is the logic that explains it?

What makes deregulating something cheaper?How does it allow for more business and more employment?

http://zuiprax.tumblr.com/post/1353730876/state-regulations-and-the-formation-of-monopolies