NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people champion this form of Political and Economic Management where nothing is run by the state, and everything is run via Capitalisim.

But aren't some things too important to leave to private sectors?

Like Health, Education, Infrastructure and security?

Or, you could just call it extreme capitalism. Or complete capitalism.

Whatever it's called, what will happen to people with no Capital? What about the disabled, the elderly?

Surely this would have to be an uncaring inhuman government?

The disabled and elderly will have to be taken care of by others, not by the government. Private charity would take over the role of government welfare.

Infrastructure would be better under private companies, because the competition would require constant improvement of your facilities to keep up demand and profit.

Private education is already superior to public education, because the market is more competitive and more accountable. Government vouchers could cover the cost of tutition, but compeititon would make it cheaper already.

Yes, but with infrastructure, what about the huge cost that would cause to companies, especially with there being more than one choice for each road/railway, so it would be inefficient.

I understand what you say about government vouchers, but that could not afford the same education for everyone. That would create a vast underclass of uneducated people, which would eventually hurt the economy, throught not having enough properly skilled workers.

And can we really trust people to give enough money that private charity would need to take over the hundreds of billions it costs to keep up a welfare state?

Yes, but with infrastructure, what about the huge cost that would cause to companies, especially with there being more than one choice for each road/railway, so it would be inefficient.

Cell phone towers are a great example. Companies rent time to other companies so only one is built. The same goes for railroad tracks. The result is better service for everyone involved (and a cheaper price.) We already spend a couple million dollars per every MILE of interstate. I think we can do alot better.

That would create a vast underclass of uneducated people

Is this not what we are already experiencing?

And can we really trust people to give enough money that private charity would need to take over the hundreds of billions it costs to keep up a welfare state?

Who is willing to pay for a hundred billion dollar welfare state? Surely not me.

Cell phone towers are a great example. Companies rent time to other companies so only one is built. The same goes for railroad tracks. The result is better service for everyone involved (and a cheaper price.) We already spend a couple million dollars per every MILE of interstate. I think we can do alot better.

Actually, you have persuaded me about infrastructure to an extent. But Mobiles are a luxury, if you could not travel on a road, because of the company you have bought your driver's license from, or if you cant afford it, does it not restrict your freedoms?

Is this not what we are already experiencing?

Perhaps in America, but Europe's socialist policies have prevented that.



Who is willing to pay for a hundred billion dollar welfare state? Surely not me.

When I say welfare, I mean Health, Benefits, Pensions, surely in a country as large as the US, it must add up to $100 billion? Then again...I suppose not?

It's a bad idea, based on wishful thinking, if you ask me.

It's a bad idea, based on wishful thinking, if you ask me.

Just like all extremes of government, like Communism, Anarchy, Dictatorship etc.

That's true about phones being a luxury. But you are taking the road argument to the other extreme. It is in a city's best interest to ensure that customers have ready access to places where they may spend their money. It is in a state's best interest to ensure that citizenry may travel from one city to another. It is in a country's best interest to ensure that they may migrate from one region to another. Why must these ideas be compromised with the introduction of greater privatization? This is more like a toll road, really. Every economics textbook is full of clever implimentations of privatization. Price is the only logical choice consumers can make.
Perhaps in America
Where would your "chavs" fit in?
When I say welfare, I mean Health, Benefits, Pensions
Why must I be obligated to give up a chunk of every paycheck to the Federal gov't with absolutely no say as to where it would be invested? That money is better off in the private sector than in some shoddy public program that shelters national debt.

Well, a lot of 'chavs' had the opportunity to finish secondary school and go to college/university. they just choose not to.

And as for your second point? Well, perhaps because one day, you might be the one who has an accident, that needs thousands of dollars worth of treatment, and means that you need the government's help throughout your life.

You should think yourself lucky that you don't need what you have to pay for yet.

Also, that proves my point about private charity, a lot of people are really not that willing to give meaningful amounts to things that will never affect them

I am a secularist and I admire what you guys have going in Europe, however, there are lots of those silly Christians here in the states as I'm sure you are aware. Those guys like to give money to the community and such and I suspect that if it were up to them they would be sending fewer tithes overseas and focus more on the local effort of poverty reduction. It would also give churches something worthwhile to do instead of constantly meddling with our beloved constitution.

Yes I suppose it could be benoficial, but religion does not belong in Charity (I mean, churches should give, but not based on the reciver'sreligion)

I just think that some very right-wing christians would use iot as a way to force people to convert. Just a possibility, not meaning to say it would happen.

The disabled and elderly will have to be taken care of by others, not by the government. Private charity would take over the role of government welfare.

Infrastructure would be better under private companies, because the competition would require constant improvement of your facilities to keep up demand and profit.

Private education is already superior to public education, because the market is more competitive and more accountable. Government vouchers could cover the cost of tutition, but compeititon would make it cheaper already.
Your opinion I really rate, yet I read this and see only ideological wishful thinking. Private education is not proven to be superior to public, for just one example.

Well if I'm enough to need handouts, maybe a little Jesus would do me good. It would certainly anesthetize me to my current situation, making me less likely to be unruly...

Religion isn't going away. Might as well put it to good use keeping poor people ok with being poor.

Anarcho-Capitalism is an idea, it's even a nice idea, but it's not a reality, as one person mentioned above, as any other extreme political theory.

Americans think we obey "Capitalism" and some people want "Socialism" but the real fact is that the market is mixed with Welfarism (both individual and Corporate) as such that we have no extreme of either. We have a web of Social inclinations and a market that is regularly underperforming because of those limitations.

Now, even if American politics (and I'll make the assumption that we're talking about the U.S.) realigns toward having Libertarian ideas, instead of the more common Statist/Authoritarian politics, there will still remain groups of Statists, even within libertarian parties.

As long as human beings are alive there is going to be a struggle between people who want a bigger state (less freedom, more "security") and people who want a smaller state (more freedom, more responsibility).

Anarcho-Capitalists are valuable members of the libertarian community, but they are they least viable in terms of being leaders to the uninformed who would like to discover the benefits of a smaller state and a freer people.

Yeah I know, but we have to remember how dangerous it can be.

(religion that is)

Anarcho-Capitalism is an idea, it's even a nice idea, but it's not a reality, as one person mentioned above, as any other extreme political theory.

Americans think we obey "Capitalism" and some people want "Socialism" but the real fact is that the market is mixed with Welfarism (both individual and Corporate) as such that we have no extreme of either. We have a web of Social inclinations and a market that is regularly underperforming because of those limitations.

Now, even if American politics (and I'll make the assumption that we're talking about the U.S.) realigns toward having Libertarian ideas, instead of the more common Statist/Authoritarian politics, there will still remain groups of Statists, even within libertarian parties.

As long as human beings are alive there is going to be a struggle between people who want a bigger state (less freedom, more "security") and people who want a smaller state (more freedom, more responsibility).

Anarcho-Capitalists are valuable members of the libertarian community, but they are they least viable in terms of being leaders to the uninformed who would like to discover the benefits of a smaller state and a freer people.

Right. As long as humans exist, there is an element to society that will force governments to exist. People want power too much, and most don't truly want to live in a world where they rely on themselves most of the time because, let's face it, lots of people are lazy. That said, Anarcho-Capitalism is just a theory and can only be debated in a theoretical context. However, we can strive to make the US more Anarcho-capitalist, even though it will never truly be anarcho-capitalist.

Cell phone towers are a great example. Companies rent time to other companies so only one is built.

Actually, that's a really BAD example. I used to work for a mobile phone provider... Let me see if I can straighten this out.

First of all, you are correct: Company A may be the first in an area to build a tower, so when Company B comes by, they just stick their transmitters on the same tower, paying rent to Company A... of course, Company A is also paying rent to whoever owns the land on which the tower is built.

However, each company is laying their own "road" in the sense that they each build separate transmitters on the same tower. They are setting up completely independent bandwidth infrastructures. They do this, in part, because of incompatibilities in technology... Sprint customers simply cannot use the technology that transmits T-Mobile's signal, and vice versa.

But they do it for another reason, as well. If you are a mobile phone provider, one of your selling points is that "calls go through" and you have few "dropped calls." Of course, one reason that a call might not go through is that too many people are trying to make calls. Thus, Company A has a strong incentive NOT to rent their actual bandwidth infrastructure to Company B... although this sometimes happens, usually not in a "rental" situation but when each company has coverage in an area where the other has very little, and they both want to get into new markets. (T-Mobile -- Voicestream at the time -- made such a "trade" with Cingular. Voicestream expanded West Coast coverage, and Cingular got the Northeast.) But this is far from efficient, and both parties expect the deal to last only as long as it takes them to build their own infrastructure in their weak area.

The result is that you might have one "tower" with, say, transmitters for four different companies on it. This is like a highway being built with four lanes, each of which can be used by ONLY one set of customers.

[EDIT: The road analogy would work as follows... Company A buys (or rents) land on which they build a road. Company B wants to compete, so they rent the strip of land IMMEDIATELY next to Road A... and build their own road. Now you have two roads next to each other, restricted to customers from two different companies.]

Of course, traffic would move much faster on the highway if those lanes were combined into one single four-lane road... Likewise, mobile phone infrastructure would be more efficient if all four towers could be used by ANY mobile phone user...

You know how, when you run out of minutes on your plan, your company starts charging you out the ass for extra minutes? This charge isn't really for the cost of making the call -- it's more like a toll, designed to keep overage to a minimum, so all users can make calls. (EDIT: That's why many companies offer free "off-peak" calls. When there is little danger of callers flooding out the system, as at night, there is no reason to make them pay for individual calls.) If those four transmitters could be used by everyone, however, there would be less risk of blocking other callers out... so there would be no need for overage charges. Customers of a monopolistic (public) cell phone company could pay their plan charge without having to worry about "going over," the same way most people pay for local landline telephone coverage. (You might still have restrictions on long-distance, because cell providers route long-distance calls through the landline companies, thus raising costs.)

Hope that clears things up. Private mobile phone infrastructure is NOT an example of efficiency.