Well the private citizens are not allowed to interefere in other freedoms and violate their rights, and coerce and use force on them. So they are not allowed to imprison someone against their will
I don't think he's being serious.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I don't think he's being serious.
Why? If we have for example many car crashes, the answer isn't necessairly to nationalize or privatize the car industries. It would maynbe be to have better traffication laws or implement regulatins for driver's licence and signing and so on. If the car industries are nationalized, the same problems still exist - same if they are privatized.
He's trying to mock Enewald and his views, and is failing as Enewald wouldn't agree with that. Nor is it what his arguments are about.
A private prison has a profit incentive thus it will seek to violate standards to save money.
cure you and your Logic
o:I can't really say much more then that I feel that prisons like other civic duties or public goods shouldn't be run for profit is all.
Can't totaly back that up though. :mellow:
Do you believe that Enewald doesn't blame poverty in Africa on the "poor life choices" made by Africans?
He probably argue that their choices have been made worse by the first worlds statist mechanism and such...
by that logic anything that harms the freeness of the market harms us all.
How does that apply when colonisation was committed by private companies?
Something about Crony capitalism I guess? :huh:
I can't say it makes any sense because he ignores the private sectors reliance on the public sector buts thats the Austrian school for you.
Attachments
Did you just say that Enewald's argument is irrational?
Since the praxeology (sp?) that it relies upon doesn't seem to reflect what we have learned about anthropology, psychology, history or arguably the scientific method itself, I would classify his arguments as irrational yes.
IIRC He doen't believe in irrationality so I can't go further.
By that logic every road building company, every company handling dams, and other industries and infrsstructure on government contracts are doing a poor job and violate standards for money.
Interestingley enough this is not the case, and private companies working for the government through government contracts have proven to be more effective (quality and cost wise) than if the government would do it on it's own.
You seem to think that profit seeking in itself is bad. Let me ask you, do you think that the baker bake bread to make money or to be solidatary? And if he had been violating standards to esrn more money, what would that result in? It would result in his costumers going away from him, or maybe he violating laws which will give him a sue against him or even prison. This would not let him earn money, but instead loose them.
The profit incetive make him want to produce better bread than his rivals. This way his customers are pleased by getting good bread, and he is pleased by getting money.
Now for prisons, the government run prisons are also dependent on money. They are also set up with a budget, and are ironically sued by the state if they use too much money or doesn't meet their demands. So here it is a whip that is scaring them to do a good job, while for private companies it is a carrot that are encouraging them to do a good job.
And they are encouraged through several factors. Take for example the natural monopolies the state are delegating to private contractors. Here the state for example say that they want a 2km highway. Then different companies will makeproposals to show the state how they will do it. The state will choose the most cost effective one, and if the company are sloppy and doesn't follow they regulations and requirements they won't be hired. If they follow their standards they will be hired. Let us now assume that due to the profit incentive they are lying and want to rush it by mixing their cement with corn or something. Okay, the road is finished but the government can see that they are cheating through supervision or when the road is finished. What will happen then (depending on the stage) is that the contract is terminated and they need to cover the costs. That means a loss in profits. Also they would maybe need to pay great fines according to the contract they have broken or illegal actions. Worst case scenario many of the leaders might go to jail for fraud and criminal activity.
The same would be for jails, it is the ones with the best solutions that are given prisoners and support. If they no longer manage to uphold the standards, or someone succeed them the government give the support and contract to their rival. If the government find out if they are doing criminal activity or conducting fraud, they will be sanctioned. In short they need to follow the rules and regulations in order to not loose profits. Also the profit incentive, rather than the whip incentive, make room for improvement as they will actually have to apply to market functions. Now they need to find more effective ways to run the prison than others, or even maybe rehabilitating the prisoners better.
However as I said the problem is not whether or not the industry is private or not. It is about the rules surrounding it, how much fraud and exploitation the government allow and current rules in general. It is many examples of government prisons who also commit crimes and frauds. Those prisons are also often neglected, and they don't need to fear loosing profit, only to fesr that the state sue them which the justice department will pay for.
If your leg is broken, it doesn't matter if your pants are red or blue. You need to go beyond the superficial and fix the strucutre and the problem itself.
Ahem. I believe I have a solution when it comes to our colonies. Liberals and Labour say that granting them independence is the moral thing to do. Conservatives and others say that granting them independence will result in disaster for their people.
Therefore, I propose that all those in the latter group be sent to the colonies when they are granted independence to provide the political and moral backbone necessary to put them on the correct path.
Therefore, I propose that all those in the latter group be sent to the colonies when they are granted independence to provide the political and moral backbone necessary to put them on the correct path.
saaayy whaaaat!
How does the private sector rely on public sector? Really? Does private sector need public sector because they need to be taxed, governed, billed, put into prison, watched over, leeched, bled dry?
There cannot be a public sector without private sector. But it works the other way round. Because so it begun.
Public sectors sole purpose is to keep itself alive any means necessary. By destroying the resources of the private individuals.
As for private colonization, you forget that the great leap forth from African savannas to the far north, south, east and west was more or less private colonization. No omnipotent states pushed the apes down from their trees to wander towards Patagonia. It was private enterprise, taking over wastelands and fertile woods and plains; no state interventionism.
As for private colonization, you forget that the great leap forth from African savannas to the far north, south, east and west was more or less private colonization. No omnipotent states pushed the apes down from their trees to wander towards Patagonia. It was private enterprise, taking over wastelands and fertile woods and plains; no state interventionism.
Liberal Party spokesman speaks in favour of private sector imperialism.
cure you and your Logic
I can't really say much more then that I feel that prisons like other civic duties or public goods shouldn't be run for profit is all.
Can't totaly back that up though. :mellow:
Why not? What would you define as civil services, and why would you then let other industries and sectors be run by the private either through government contracts or free enterprise. But as I said, I am not supporting either of them in this discussion, I am just saying that it is much easier to blaming something because it is private, and that you should make up arguments for why you would want it or not. Set up a list of pro and contra
And most likely it will be that you're scared of profit incentive, and think negative of it. It is then based upon emotions rather than logic - doesn't say that is necessairly a bad thing.His definition of rationality is different than yours. It is based upon human brain and it's biology. When most of us think of irrationality vs. rationality we have a more philosphical and metaphyscial approach. He have a more scientific approach. That is what is rational is the decision making a brain (that is 100% healthy, in a healthy/stable body/person/situation) are making. We are therefore discussing two different things. We are discussing why ferrarris are the best cars, while Enewald are discussing why Arabs are the best horses. We are not discussing the same thing, and the situations are therefore impossible to set up to eachother and used in common settings.
saaayy whaaaat!
How does the private sector rely on public sector? Really? Does private sector need public sector because they need to be taxed, governed, billed, put into prison, watched over, leeched, bled dry?
There cannot be a public sector without private sector. But it works the other way round. Because so it begun.
Public sectors sole purpose is to keep itself alive any means necessary. By destroying the resources of the private individuals.
As for private colonization, you forget that the great leap forth from African savannas to the far north, south, east and west was more or less private colonization. No omnipotent states pushed the apes down from their trees to wander towards Patagonia. It was private enterprise, taking over wastelands and fertile woods and plains; no state interventionism.
The British East India company and Shell would disagree If there is no public sector the private sector will construct and apparatus to take matters into it's own hands.
If the state withered away like you want, enough private sector participants would coagulate together to form and entity that would hold the monopoly on violence. Someone has to create enough stability to actually create an environment where one could make a profit no? The Power vacuum would have to be filled by an entity to guarantee contract compliance which is basically a government.
As time goes on this entity would take on more power as the private sector will want something that does all the grunt work of securing resources thus a military. :mellow:
I'll admit you'll probably leap on me anyway for missing a step but I have laid out some of my basic reasoning.
Public sector rely on a greater degree on the private sector. As it is the private sector that stand for the most employment, and it is they who produce the most and demand the most (both in private and public sector) and more importantly it is from them the government actually get taxes which they can then use on the public sector. The private sector is only reliant on the public sector in terms of resources and services the government have monopolized. But they would have gotten that without the government, but the public sector wouldn't have gotten subsidues and budgets without the taxation from the private, and their demand after their products and services and what they supply them with.
That being said, I am not speaking against public sector, but I am pointing out that the public sector are more reliant on private sector than the other way around.
He speak of species migrating.
- Status