Jump to content

      



























Photo

Privatization


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 davek

davek
  • Member
  • 670 posts

Posted 02 April 2008 - 08:12 PM

I can't see how the size of local government could possibly be reduced any more without drastically altering the benefits we receive. I always find libertarians and conservatives vague on this point.


Well, then, let me be clear. The size of local government cannot possibly be reduced any more without drastically altering the benefits we receive. They will be drastically altered for the better. Privatized libraries, rec centers, building inspections, garbage collection, etcetara, will provide better service at lower prices. Some folks don't like libertarian ideas, and don't think they will work, but that's not the same as being vague. I've got all the detail anyone wants, and I can talk about them all day, so long as someone else is buying the drinks.

#2 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 02 April 2008 - 08:57 PM

Pure libertarianism results in mutants and underwater cities, I'm not sure where I stand on that.
http://bp1.blogger.c...0_screen001.jpg

#3 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 02 April 2008 - 10:07 PM

Well, then, let me be clear. The size of local government cannot possibly be reduced any more without drastically altering the benefits we receive. They will be drastically altered for the better. Privatized libraries, rec centers, building inspections, garbage collection, etcetara, will provide better service at lower prices. Some folks don't like libertarian ideas, and don't think they will work, but that's not the same as being vague. I've got all the detail anyone wants, and I can talk about them all day, so long as someone else is buying the drinks.


Well I am totally against the privatization of our libraries. I don see how that will provide better service at lower prices. I suppose you support the complete privitization of our public schools too. Those services are for all people to use regardless of what income bracket they are in. If you start to make them for profit entities, then only those with a lot of money can enjoy them.

Groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Fraser Institute scare me whenever they champion privitization.

#4 davek

davek
  • Member
  • 670 posts

Posted 03 April 2008 - 05:41 PM

Well I am totally against the privatization of our libraries. I don see how that will provide better service at lower prices.


By doing the same thing that grocery stores, department stores, and video stores do.

I suppose you support the complete privitization of our public schools too. Those services are for all people to use regardless of what income bracket they are in. If you start to make them for profit entities, then only those with a lot of money can enjoy them.


Average private school tuition is far lower than average public school tuition, and results are superior. This is despite the fact that there is a limited market in private education. A totally free market in education would provide even greater benefits.

#5 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 03 April 2008 - 06:24 PM

Average private school tuition is far lower than average public school tuition, and results are superior. This is despite the fact that there is a limited market in private education. A totally free market in education would provide even greater benefits.


Hmmm, I find that hard to credit. The BC government claims $7700/per pupil of education funding. The Council for American Private Education says that sectarian schools have average tuitions of $10k. Religious schools have much lower tuition, but I would expect thats because they are subsidized by their churches.

I couldn't find stats for Canada, but I doubt your assertion. Even if it were true, private schools don't have to accept poor students, and therefore education is substantially cheaper.

I also very strongly doubt that after correcting for socio-economic backgrounds, private school students do significantly better than public.

#6 davek

davek
  • Member
  • 670 posts

Posted 03 April 2008 - 08:26 PM

Hmmm, I find that hard to credit...


I'm all for healthy skepticism. I don't want to spend much time off-topic, but since you've demonstrated an interest in the subject, you might be interested in this.

If you think education is a public good, maybe I could interest you in some education tax credits.

#7 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 03 April 2008 - 09:45 PM

This doesn't exactly make your point that private schools are far cheaper:

Contrary to the common misconception that private school tuitions are sky-high, the vast majority of Canadian private schools are small, inexpensive, and are often subsidized by religious organizations. Children First grant recipients attend a wide variety of schools, including Montessori, Waldorf, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and small community schools. The average tuition of the 150 schools the families will attend in the 2004-05 school year is just under $5,000. This is far less than the $7,800 spent on average to educate a child in the Ontario public system.


... which basically is what I said, except I provided the unsubsidized figure (~$10k).

The reason why I am challenging you is that privatization of schools is the latest koolaid in the US. The private education industry is spending billions in lobbying money (and giving lots to think tanks!) to see this come to pass. Why? Because there is huge money to be made doing it. Where there is huge money to be made there is a tendency to shade the truth. I would take anything written by the Fraser or Cato Institutes with a big grain of salt and check their facts independently.

#8 davek

davek
  • Member
  • 670 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 05:28 PM

Well, if you're determined to stay off topic, this is a good subject to discuss. Perhaps someone can move us to a new thread?

This doesn't exactly make your point that private schools are far cheaper...


You're right, it doesn't. I have to withdraw the 'far' cheaper comment until I can gather more evidence. Thank you for keeping me honest, and Mea Culpa. Still, there are other arguments to consider. Because most families can't afford to pay for both private AND public education, there is little demand for low-cost private education, so when the subsidized tuition of religious schools is taken out of the calculations, one is left with private schools that are largely the domain of the wealthy.

It's as if the government taxed everyone to supply the public with mid-size cars. Since everyone gets a car, and has to pay taxes for it, the only ones who can get something different are the wealthy, who buy luxury vehicles, and poor families who get mini vans subsidized by their church. If you elect to take out the minivans, the average price of private cars appears much higher than it would be in a free market for vehicles. It is reasonable to assume that if parents had the option of directing their child's tuition toward the school of their choice (public OR private), the volume of consumers purchasing low cost private education would drive the non-sectarian tuition average down.

The reason why I am challenging you is that privatization of schools is the latest koolaid in the US.


I'm happy to be challenged, regardless of your motivation. Anything that brings attention to vouchers, education tax credits, and the benefits of a free market in education is okay by me. Now, there is no one in the US or Canada that has to pay for private education. Those that do so, do so willingly and sometimes at great personal sacrifice. It is reasonable to assume that there are more who would join if they could. People like these. Describing that choice as 'the latest koolaid in the US' is inflammatory, and suggests an irrational bias.

The private education industry is spending billions in lobbying money (and giving lots to think tanks!) to see this come to pass.


Seeing as you caught me on my unsupportable tuition claim, I'm surprised you would put forward such an obvious exaggeration. I hope you will follow my example and either cite a reference or withdraw this.

Where there is huge money to be made there is a tendency to shade the truth.


I agree. This is why public school teachers and their unions, who are the recipients of this huge money as a result of their near monopoly, should have their arguments against privatization viewed skeptically.

I would take anything written by the Fraser or Cato Institutes with a big grain of salt and check their facts independently.


All facts should be checked independently. In that spirit, rather than resorting to smears, can you show that the Fraser or Cato Institutes are shills for Big Private Education?

BTW, libertarians hold a wide range of opinions on this issue. Although I personally think the education of one's children should be entirely the responsibility of the parents, there are plenty of libertarians who see public education as a necessary component of a democratic society, and therefore a valid public cost which should be shared evenly. So don't go telling everyone that libertarians are trying to shut down all the public schools. Just libertarians like me.

#9 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 06:43 PM

Seeing as you caught me on my unsupportable tuition claim, I'm surprised you would put forward such an obvious exaggeration. I hope you will follow my example and either cite a reference or withdraw this.


Yes, sorry, I meant "millions".

From Harper's Dec 07:

Total contributions to 2008 presidential campaigns so far that have come from the oil and gas industry : $1,727,000

Total from the education industry : $6,406.000

My apologies. Cold medication. The point is that there is a major push to privatize education in the states.

While I'm sure its not billions, one does wonder what they are spending on lobbying and at the state level (where most education decisions are made).

Point taken about the unions.

Both think tanks have policy initiatives that they want to push through. Their motives aside, they are essentially lobbyists, and thus do not present balanced pictures. That is fine - I think there is a valid role to be played by such think tanks. However, I think that citing them for facts in support of libertarian ideas is like citing the communist party for facts in support of communist ones.

#10 davek

davek
  • Member
  • 670 posts

Posted 04 April 2008 - 07:23 PM

^ Aw, for cryin' out loud, jklymak! I had my dukes up and was ready for you to come out swinging! Instead, you're all cool and reasonable... took the wind right out of my sails...

Well, give me a little time, and I'll see what kind of case I can put together. In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you took a look at those links and tell me what you think. The Drew Carey clip is particularly entertaining.

#11 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 05 April 2008 - 09:05 PM

Unfortunately Davek, that so called freemarket system you champion has shoved the US health care system down the toilet. A system that has insurance companies whose only goal is to see how many reasons they can find to not cover health costs. A system who supports profit over people.

The capitalist/freemarket system is a major failure.
It does not support local businesses, human rights, environmental protection, workers rights, as these are barriers to profits going to the large multi-nationals. I am afraid that the total privitization of the education system will take the control out the one group of people that should have the only say, the voters.

Iraq is a classic example of what happens when privitization goes wrong. I can list many more.

By doing the same thing that grocery stores, department stores, and video stores do.

These are for profit entities, providing good education and healthcare should not be about making money. I have my doubts that a privitized education system is going to go out their way to treat a family with little money the same as a family with a lot of money.

I am not saying that governments are any more perfect, but at least if they screw up, they have to answer to the voters/taxpayers. This cant happen in a privitized/freemarket system.

#12 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 05 April 2008 - 09:29 PM

I am not saying that governments are any more perfect, but at least if they screw up, they have to answer to the voters/taxpayers. This cant happen in a privitized/freemarket system.


Agreed. Private organizations tend to only be accountable to their shareholders, and their bottom line is profit, not social welfare. With the exception of a few like Bill Gates, large corporations, and the very wealthy in general, are not inclined to be philanthropic, unless large tax breaks are given to them. This in turn only reduces what the government is able to return back to the taxpayer in the form of sevices due to reduced income. Not exactly a win-win situation.

#13 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 09:43 AM

The capitalist/freemarket system is a major failure.
It does not support local businesses, human rights, environmental protection, workers rights, as these are barriers to profits going to the large multi-nationals. I am afraid that the total privatization of the education system will take the control out the one group of people that should have the only say, the voters.

Although I disagree that such is the case under capitalism, those statements are true under communism. Eastern Europe in the 20th Century had no support for local businesses unless they were operated by party members or party supporters, had human rights atrocities, had little regard for the environment, had virtually no workers rights above the most basic and profit/production was controlled solely by the government.

Capitalism with some government intervention is a blessing compared to communism/socialism.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#14 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 06 April 2008 - 10:22 AM

I do agree with on that. But companies based out of North America (under capitalisim and globalization and the so called freemarket) have taken advantage of other countries where regulations are scarce. Look at Iraq, south America, south asia, where over the last 30 years under the guidence of the university of Chicago, prominate us politicians, businessman (many who were educated there), etc, have overseen the forcefull collapse of government owned systems to force privitization on citizens in those areas of the world.

This mean seem crazy, but there is a lot of documented proof, unfortunately our history books dont include this. Fortunately many of those countries are starting to turn things around as the opposition to privitization and globalization is growing.

#15 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 10:31 AM

Although I disagree that such is the case under capitalism, those statements are true under communism. Eastern Europe in the 20th Century had no support for local businesses unless they were operated by party members or party supporters, had human rights atrocities, had little regard for the environment, had virtually no workers rights above the most basic and profit/production was controlled solely by the government.


But you'd have to admit that their education system was pretty good!

In my mind the largest problem with education in the US is that it is too localized and dependent on local property taxes. Good for those who can afford to move to affluent enclaves. Bad for society as a whole as the poor get disproportionately worse education.

Compare to BC where the ESL schools in Vancouver and schools in the interior are strongly supported by the government with disproportionately more resources because those students need the most help. To me, that is the advantage of a centralized education system, and I feel it out-weighs the perceived disadvantages.

#16 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 10:59 AM

In my mind the blind ideology that pits communism and capitalism against each other is the real threat to human quality of life. In a society where everything is private, and Adam Smith's invisible hand is given responsibility for soothing social ills or environmental concerns, worker's rights, protection of the young, the sick, the elderly and the interests of future generations are endangered. So to, it is true that a totalitarian communist state, devoted to the ideology of communism and fearful of any profit oriented enterprise will steamroll both the social and the environmental good.

The only thing that has worked in history is a hybrid, a strong market economy regulated and supported by a strong social agenda. By finding the middle road, political entities have the freedom to choose the mix that works the best for them, in that time and space, to customize a system that best fits their own demographic, developmental and resource conditions. That, to me, is the only intelligent route, and increasingly it has been the reality for nations around the world - in fact, I'd challenge anyone to find me a state that is not a hybrid.

#17 davek

davek
  • Member
  • 670 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 11:35 AM

Unfortunately Davek, that so called freemarket system you champion has shoved the US health care system down the toilet. A system that has insurance companies whose only goal is to see how many reasons they can find to not cover health costs. A system who supports profit over people.


In a free market, consumers are free to choose different insurance providers, and insurance companies who don't satisfy their customers are fully exposed to the loss of those customers. If insurance companies are not satisfying their customers and not going out of business, then they cannot be said to be operating in a free market.
It is a commonly held misconception that failures in US health care are a result of free market practices. In truth, failures are the result of regulation and subsidization.

The capitalist/freemarket system is a major failure.
It does not support local businesses, human rights, environmental protection, workers rights, as these are barriers to profits going to the large multi-nationals.


I'm not about to take on your wholesale re-education. Give me an example of what you perceive as a market failure, and I will show you how government is responsible. I'm not saying that multi-nationals don't misbehave, I'm telling you that they cannot do so in the absence of governmental collusion.

These are for profit entities, providing good education and healthcare should not be about making money.


As usual, my opponents make my arguments for me. Grocery stores don't provide milk, bread, and meat because they love me. Department stores don't provide clothes because they want to be my friend. Private business does good by us because of the profit motive. The reason people complain about schools and health care instead of grocery stores and department stores is that regulation and subsidization have shielded them from the competition they need to drive their improvement. Until education and health care are provided by profit seeking providers exposed to market forces, they will continue to be expensive and outdated.

I have my doubts that a privitized education system is going to go out their way to treat a family with little money the same as a family with a lot of money.


Suppliers in private systems compete to please customers at all income levels. That's why families with little money can still get a good car, even if it's not a Lexus.

I am not saying that governments are any more perfect, but at least if they screw up, they have to answer to the voters/taxpayers. This cant happen in a privitized/freemarket system.


Private actors must answer to consumers, so feedback is much more immediate. They also lack the ability of government to concentrate benefits and disperse costs. Voting every four years or so cannot possibly equal this kind of quality feedback.

I am glad that you are concerned with this topic, urbanrail. I think that if you continue to examine the issue, in time you will tire of the way government continues to fail to live up to its promise. My confidence is further spurred by the fact that I, and many other libertarians, came from positions similar to yours, but I have never seen anyone say, "You know, I used to believe in free markets and personal responsibility, but after studying the issues, I think what we need is more central planning and authoritarianism."

#18 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 06 April 2008 - 12:24 PM

In my mind the blind ideology that pits communism and capitalism against each other is the real threat to human quality of life. In a society where everything is private, and Adam Smith's invisible hand is given responsibility for soothing social ills or environmental concerns, worker's rights, protection of the young, the sick, the elderly and the interests of future generations are endangered. So to, it is true that a totalitarian communist state, devoted to the ideology of communism and fearful of any profit oriented enterprise will steamroll both the social and the environmental good.

The only thing that has worked in history is a hybrid, a strong market economy regulated and supported by a strong social agenda. By finding the middle road, political entities have the freedom to choose the mix that works the best for them, in that time and space, to customize a system that best fits their own demographic, developmental and resource conditions. That, to me, is the only intelligent route, and increasingly it has been the reality for nations around the world - in fact, I'd challenge anyone to find me a state that is not a hybrid.



I will definitely support a hybrid system.

#19 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 06 April 2008 - 12:25 PM

But you'd have to admit that their education system was pretty good!

We're to blame for North America's education system. Go to any high school anywhere on this continent and you'll see more students sailing through rather than trying to achieve high marks or treat education like a gift and not like a punishment.

The reason eastern block countries had better education was not because of a better system, per se, but because of a different attitude by the students themselves. I've discussed this issue numerous times with my family and in their opinion Canada's system far outweighs anything offered by the communist government.

As for post-secondary education, I'd personally prefer to pay my way than serve in the military to reimburse the government or end up paying higher taxes for the rest of my life.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#20 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 06 April 2008 - 12:30 PM

In a free market, consumers are free to choose different insurance providers, and insurance companies who don't satisfy their customers are fully exposed to the loss of those customers. If insurance companies are not satisfying their customers and not going out of business, then they cannot be said to be operating in a free market.
It is a commonly held misconception that failures in US health care are a result of free market practices. In truth, failures are the result of regulation and subsidization.



I'm not about to take on your wholesale re-education. Give me an example of what you perceive as a market failure, and I will show you how government is responsible. I'm not saying that multi-nationals don't misbehave, I'm telling you that they cannot do so in the absence of governmental collusion.



As usual, my opponents make my arguments for me. Grocery stores don't provide milk, bread, and meat because they love me. Department stores don't provide clothes because they want to be my friend. Private business does good by us because of the profit motive. The reason people complain about schools and health care instead of grocery stores and department stores is that regulation and subsidization have shielded them from the competition they need to drive their improvement. Until education and health care are provided by profit seeking providers exposed to market forces, they will continue to be expensive and outdated.



Suppliers in private systems compete to please customers at all income levels. That's why families with little money can still get a good car, even if it's not a Lexus.



Private actors must answer to consumers, so feedback is much more immediate. They also lack the ability of government to concentrate benefits and disperse costs. Voting every four years or so cannot possibly equal this kind of quality feedback.

I am glad that you are concerned with this topic, urbanrail. I think that if you continue to examine the issue, in time you will tire of the way government continues to fail to live up to its promise. My confidence is further spurred by the fact that I, and many other libertarians, came from positions similar to yours, but I have never seen anyone say, "You know, I used to believe in free markets and personal responsibility, but after studying the issues, I think what we need is more central planning and authoritarianism."


I dont believe in total government control, nor do I believe in total corporate control either. I do think we can find a middle ground, where the best aspects of capitalisim and communisim (socialist) can be combined. Heck I dont even trust our own government (NDP, Liberal or Conservative). This day in age, we cant please everyone.

This is an enjoyable debate.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users