Privatization Of Government Services

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1256551' date='Apr 25 2007, 10:24 PM']Privatize 'em all, I say!

But I'm leary of simply turning tax moneys to privately owned businesses - once something becomes a recipiant of tax money, it is on its way to effectively becoming a puppet of the government, and becomes as bad as the government systems it is intended to replace.
I am for drastically reducing taxes and government spending across the board. Our semi-socialist big-government system merely feeds bloated beauracracy and incompetence, and this problem has been steadily growing. Both Democrats and Republicans are part of the problem. We need a genuine reduction in government, yet this will never happen, because as soon as government jobs or pay get slashed, those dependent on them start howling.
Our obscenely high taxes pay for all manner of wasteful, incompetent, fraudulent, and morally-questionable programs which we must support whether we want to or not, and these taxes crush small business and intiative among those of limited means.

Everything which can, should be handled by private enterprise and initiative.

We need a genuine revolution against socialism and bloated government, but don't expect much help from the politicians.[/quote]
So ... how do you see privatizing cutting costs? What about Katholikos' suggestion that privatization actually puts government (and therefore us) in a vulnerable position?

I am also concerned about what is being cut to make private business be able to provide these services more efficiently. And, like I noted above, about the fact that we are putting some of our most vulnerable citizens in a situation where serving them is done for a profit. What do you say to that?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1256556' date='Apr 25 2007, 10:30 PM']Depends on the private school. Teachers in some private schools can make very good money, and there are schools without money where the teachers work for low pay, yet still provide quality education.

Quality of public schools varies - but overall have a worse track record on education than private schools. Many public schools are miserable failures, and like other public systems are not subject to the laws of competition.

The idea that teachers must have ever higher salaries to be effective educators is just NEA propaganda.[/quote]
I would agree that some private schools do pay very well. However, I'd say that's the minority of schools.

As far as good pay making teachers better -- that's not my contention (and I'm really not all that familiar with the NEA's arguments here). I'm not saying that good pay will make a bad teacher better, but rather that a higher paying position will attract a more qualified individual and persuade them to stay. It's a fact of life (and business) that people are motivated by money. I'd personally prefer to pay a little more and keep a good teacher longer than save money and have high turnover. Like I said, you will have some teachers who are there because they're called, but money is always a motivation.

Or, we could introduce competition into the system. I've long been a fan of vouchers and a (tentative) fan of charter schools. But I really think that schools are a whole nother animal than the type of privatization I'm talking about. If you really want to debate that, I think another thread is in order.

[The Joey-O]

I'm just gunna throw this out there. (I don't know if it will be helpful or not.)

It seems to me that it doesn't matter if its publically or privately funded. It seems to me that the smaller the organization is and the more connected it is to the community, the better the odds for its success. Perhaps the answer is subsidarity. Maybe it doesn't matter whether its government or public funded. Just a thought.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1256768' date='Apr 26 2007, 10:17 AM']I'm just gunna throw this out there. (I don't know if it will be helpful or not.)

It seems to me that it doesn't matter if its publically or privately funded. It seems to me that the smaller the organization is and the more connected it is to the community, the better the odds for its success. Perhaps the answer is subsidarity. Maybe it doesn't matter whether its government or public funded. Just a thought.[/quote]
well, it's not about being publicly or privately funded -- all the instances I'm talking about are publicly funded.

the question is whether government or a for-profit business should be administering services. I think if government were contracting with many small private for-profit companies to provide, say, welfare services that might be a slightly better situation than what is actually happening because it would be easier for a local community to exercise accountability. But it still doesn't sit right.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1256779' date='Apr 26 2007, 11:29 AM']well, it's not about being publicly or privately funded -- all the instances I'm talking about are publicly funded.

the question is whether government or a for-profit business should be administering services. I think if government were contracting with many small private for-profit companies to provide, say, welfare services that might be a slightly better situation than what is actually happening because it would be easier for a local community to exercise accountability. But it still doesn't sit right.[/quote]

I love the idea of subsidiarity, but, ironically, it must be instituted on a federal level. For example, if some community/state instituted a great program to help the homeless, then there'd probably a little abuse of it, jacking up the cost a bit. As the word spread, there would be a lot more abuse, as not-so-good-people from around the country come to take advantage of it. This puts an unfair burden on this otherwise great system and greatly increases the cost of payout. Now, if the federal government required that some program be in place with certain qualifications placed on it, but did not seek to institute the program themselves (there would be a balance that needs to be achieved here. The government couldn't run the program or over-regulate it, but it would need to keep the programs accountable to a certain standard.) There would be approximately the same amount of abuse in these various programs, but the weight of carrying that burden would be spread out.

I think major companies could be involved in this, but they'd be forced to be appointed by local communities or states (I'd really prefer local communities in most instances). Unless they win bids in a lot of different areas, they wouldn't have access to lots of money. They wouldn't win the bids, unless they had a compelling case. And with greatly restricted access to cash, it would reduce abuse from private and public sectors.

[Starets]

Depends on the service, maybe? Alberta has privatised licencing and land titles info. That seems to be working out well for them. Or at least it was in the late 90's when I lived in Calgary. You could walk into anyone of a couple dozen places in Calgary and ask for a title search on a given address. Then pay a fee and boom you have your results.vb

btw, its scary what you can find on a title search!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1256880' date='Apr 26 2007, 12:52 PM']Depends on the service, maybe? Alberta has privatised licencing and land titles info. That seems to be working out well for them. Or at least it was in the late 90's when I lived in Calgary. You could walk into anyone of a couple dozen places in Calgary and ask for a title search on a given address. Then pay a fee and boom you have your results.vb

btw, its scary what you can find on a title search![/quote]
Our title services are privatized as well, I believe. At least they were in Indiana; don't know for certain if that's the case in other states.

My main concern is the issue of providing services to vulnerable populations: prisoners, the poor, etc., and selling those to for-profit ventures, for reasons I've enumerated above.


And Joey-O ... you might be onto something, but I need to give it some thought. I do agree with the concept of spreading the weight of service provision. Which I've argued before in welfare debates here (which I don't want this to turn into, btw).

[journeyman]

What is the underlying premise of the question? Should services presently offered by governments be offered by private enterprise? The unasked question is was that service a fit one for government monopolization in the first place?

Where did the concept of libraries begin? Private sector.
Where did the concept of public education begin? One room school house formed by the residents, not the local governnment.
Where did the concept of public utilities begin? Private sector.
Where did the concept of public transportation begin? Private sector.
Where did the concept of public welfare begin? Private sector, specifically, the churches.
Where did the concept of public fire department begin. Volunteer fire and rescue squads (well, that's what we call them today)


If the question is posed in terms of "what is the aim of government? what services must government offer in order to meet those aims?" then the list of services that must be offered grows shorter. With a shorter list of "must do" items, the government's burden (tax) on the citizen also grows less.



Is life so sweet, or peace so dear, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
(Patrick Henry -- Speech in the Virginia Convention, March, 1775)

[Sojourner]

yes, but there are reasons that these services moved into the public sector

In each of those cases, there is a recognition that there is a public benefit that arises from consistent provision of service. And there is a recognition that for services that we all benefit from, we should all equitably contribute.

[journeyman]

Are the services provided consistently? Are consistent services provided universally? Or are there sections/neighborhoods that always seem to get the short end of the stick?


public utility service - through regulation, government obtains the universal service without having to provide the service itself . . . are we happy with the electric and telephone company . . . not always . . . but, the costs of entry are so high, that regulated monopolies appears to be the answer

In some localities, the local government owns and operates the utility - more so with water and sewer than with electric or telephone today . . . at least here in Virginia . . . but other than because they have done so for 50 years, why should they?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1259324' date='Apr 28 2007, 09:42 PM']Are the services provided consistently? Are consistent services provided universally? Or are there sections/neighborhoods that always seem to get the short end of the stick?
public utility service - through regulation, government obtains the universal service without having to provide the service itself . . . are we happy with the electric and telephone company . . . not always . . . but, the costs of entry are so high, that regulated monopolies appears to be the answer

In some localities, the local government owns and operates the utility - more so with water and sewer than with electric or telephone today . . . at least here in Virginia . . . but other than because they have done so for 50 years, why should they?[/quote]
It of course depends on the service.

Of course nothing is provided universally or entirely consistently, but we're talking degrees. And who's to say that private companies would do it better? Business is focused on the bottom line, which does not necessarily mean on the best interests of its customers.

As far as utilities ... I know that utilities are sometimes gov't run and sometimes private and sometimes a public-private partnership (once I got a brochure touting a public-private partnership only they left out the "l" ).

I think there can be a place for private business to have a place in providing public services, but I really think that there are ethical and moral issues with administering programs aimed at serving vulnerable populations. (And I do think that welfare administration belongs with the state rather than with private organizations ... there's a whole thread on this very topic from a couple years ago.)