NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, it's interesting, I support the Private Sector, and I support when government function gets turned over to the Private Sector, because I do believe that whatever Gov. Co. can do, the Private Sector can do better. However I do not know how to make heads or tails about this.

Let's start with a few facts, Gov. Co. used to run something called Flight Service Station (FSS), which is basically centers all around the USA where pilots can call in to get weather briefings (reports), NOTAMs (which is basically a head's up on what to expect on your flight),TFRs (Temporary Flight Restriction, basically Temporary Restricted Airspace) and you can file a flight plan with them. Now ever since FSS came into service the government actually done a pretty good job of running it, you would get good service, the people you talk to are very knowledgeable about the area, and waiting time is pretty much kept to a Minimum.

Recently, the Government, and the FAA decided to privatized the FSS, which resulted in a lot of FSS centers being closed down for a more 'central' locations. The company that is now handling FSS, is Lockheed Martin (now called AFSS). Ever since then, pilots that I know, and pilots on forums that I've visit are complaining about AFSS, long waiting time, no knowledge of the area, hard time filing flight plans, etc. Lockheed Martin basically broke the system and are now slowly trying to repair it.

However, there are alternative, the main one is Direct User Access Terminal Service or DUATS. DUATS is basically FSS or AFSS that you can access from your home, and the service is great. I use DUATS all the time, especially with the state Lockheed has the AFSS in, however DUATS like the government run FSS may be going to the way side by June of 2008, when the contract that the company has with the government runs out. Hopefully they will extend the contract and not give Lockheed a monopoly on this type of service which is invaluable to aviators.

Who knows, maybe the market will demand a competition to the Lockheed AFSS or if enough pilots complain, DUATS will be able to remain online and provide an alternative to the Lockheed AFSS, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. If Lockheed does start charging people for using it's AFSS, then that's probably going to drive another company to run DUATS or have the FAA keep DUATS contract running.

I just posted this because it's interesting to see my viewpoints being challenged in real life situations.

To me the biggest challenge on this issue is with ex-government telcos and energy companies.

These generally own the networks of powerlines, pipelines and whatever other infrastructure is needed. Privatisation simply gave enormous monopoly power to these firms, and any competition is immediately at a disadvantage because it has to pay royalties to use the infrastructure.

So the question is whether the infrastructure should be state-operated and only the service providers that use it privatised. In theory it sounds okay, in practice it would require expropriation (and since I'm a shareholder in E.On, I've got personal issues with that).

telecom, public transportation, energy, schools, defence, police, fire, water...all generally best left to the government (some with the option of private, but not private as the sole or primary provider)

i trust a corporation (which are too often confused with REGULAR businesses) about as much as a Michigan Militia does the gov't.

not that i trust them either, but the corps own the gov't

I can't say I am very surprised.

The "omg privitization ftw!" argument breaks down on one simple question.

What happens when people are dependant on services that can not be run profitably?

The private sector is best in most things except for transportation infrastructure, which is simply not a field capable of functioning as a market. Energy, telecoms, and water are usually pretty well suited to privatization (although in the case of water supplies, public-private partnerships tend to be the most optimal to help balance the high initial investment cost of water infrastcuture), while things like transportation and public services are best left to the public sector.

The "omg privitization ftw!" argument breaks down on one simple question.

What happens when people are dependant on services that can not be run profitably?

and that's pretty much it, the FSS under Government has been non-profit, and if Lockheed even thinks about charging pilots for it's service of AFSS, then it'd pretty much be like opening up the gates of Hell in the aviation community.

What happens when people are dependant on services that can not be run profitably?

There aren't very many of them, but those that are are generally best left as public or public-private enterprises.

...because I do believe that whatever Gov. Co. can do, the Private Sector can do better. However I do not know how to make heads or tails about this.


I think ultimately I've decided that I could care less who does X better, or more efficiently, or whatever. What I care about is who protects and serves my interests better. And when I reflect upon the nature of Big Business and Big Government, and the tendency of the two to go hand in hand in most (if not all) ventures, I'm left with a simple "neither."

Since both are founded in, and run according to, the same general principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy), this result doesn't actually surprise me. "Private Sector" and "Gov Co." exploit limited ownership and control (of economic goods and political power respectively and, in many ways, equally), and both have interests that are often contrary to my own.

The perceived difference between "Gov. Co." and "Private Sector" is probably the greatest and most nonsensical false dichotomy the species has yet come up with. And, unfortunately, every political party I can see has fallen for it.

How do you propose to fix this problem, TLO?

I think ultimately I've decided that I could care less who does X better, or more efficiently, or whatever. What I care about is who protects and serves my interests better. And when I reflect upon the nature of Big Business and Big Government, and the tendency of the two to go hand in hand in most (if not all) ventures, I'm left with a simple "neither."

Since both are founded in, and run according to, the same general principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy), this result doesn't actually surprise me. "Private Sector" and "Gov Co." exploit limited ownership and control (of economic goods and political power respectively and, in many ways, equally), and both have interests that are often contrary to my own.

The perceived difference between "Gov. Co." and "Private Sector" is probably the greatest and most nonsensical false dichotomy the species has yet come up with. And, unfortunately, every political party I can see has fallen for it.

So you are saying nobody should run it? That we shouldn't have facilities all together? Cuz if I am not mistaken things are either public owned or private owned. I am not sure if neither makes any sense in this argument.

I can't say that I understood the OP, sorry.
But I can tell you for sure that not everything government does companies do better. On the contrary.

See, the purpose of government is to provide services to everyone. The pupose of a company is to make money. To believe that the two purposes can be merged and then provide the service and make money is frankly idiotic.
The example I can provide would be the German Railway. Originally, it was state-owned and provided a very good way to get around the country in an affordable way. The surplus made on the busy main routes between cities was used to keep the less busy routes to small towns and villages running.
Now they are privatised. All of a sudden the suplus made on the busy routes goes into the pockets of the shareholders, and the small routes are closed down one after the other. As a result, the people who needed to rely on the train services most to get them from their villages to the towns and back are stranded without connections.