Nationalisation or Private?

[Rival]

Would you support nationalisation or privatisation of areas such as health, schools, prisons etc.? Why?

 

[Sunstone]

Contrary to often regurgitated propaganda, it seems some services are most efficiently or fairly delivered by the government, rather than by private businesses.

For instance, private prisons in the US are the main lobbyists for tougher penalties for victimless crimes such as marijuana usage because they find it profitable to incarcerate marijuana users. Hence, the millions they spend each year lobbying state and federal governments for tough penalties. Before the rise of private prisons, we had a much lower incarceration rate in this country.

Private prisons have also been known to bribe judges to sentence people to them. These are not evils that are associated with state owned prisons.

 

[HonestJoe]

Would you support nationalisation or privatisation of areas such as health, schools, prisons etc? Why?

No.

Both state run and privately run services suffer their risks and disadvantages so I think some form of mixture of both is the best way to minimise and counteract them.

 

[Rival]

Contrary to often regurgitated propaganda, it seems some services are most efficiently or fairly delivered by the government, rather than by private businesses.

For instance, private prisons in the US are the main lobbyists for tougher penalties for victimless crimes such as marijuana usage because they find it profitable to incarcerate marijuana users. Hence, the millions they spend each year lobbying state and federal governments for tough penalties. Before the rise of private prisons, we had a much lower incarceration rate in this country.

Private prisons have also been known to bribe judges to sentence people to them. These are not evils that are associated with state owned prisons.

I tend to strongly favour nationalisation for reasons like this, assuming the government is competent (i.e., not a dictatorship etc).

 

[Father Heathen]

Would you support nationalisation or privatisation of areas such as health, schools, prisons etc? Why?

If privatized, then profit becomes the priority. For prisons crime, convictions, and recidivism are good for business, but these are obviously not in society's best interest. Same with the medical industry; sickness and treatments are good for business, cures and good health are not. Again, not in society's best interest.

 

[Kemosloby]

Nationalise.

Health, Schools and Prisons

I don't believe free enterprise is driving improvement to any of those things, they're pretty much stagnant, mired in regulation, you might as well nationalize them.

 

[blü 2]

My Philosopher King side has some sympathy for Napoléon, who ordained a single universal government system of secular education. I have in mind the Finnish model which is expensive, because teachers are highly trained and paid accordingly, and, many say, the best in Europe at all levels, which means pretty dang good.

Fortunately for me, though, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am for an overall mixed economy with some command and some capitalism, with some socialized and some privatized facets. I do think the ones you mention in your OP serve more people better when nationalized, though.

 

[Milton Platt]

Would you support nationalisation or privatisation of areas such as health, schools, prisons etc.? Why?

I would be willing to listen...the devil is in the details.

 

[Mindmaster]

Would you support nationalisation or privatisation of areas such as health, schools, prisons etc.? Why?

As an individualistic anarchist I don't trust the government to tie it's shoes. Historically, anything the government has been involved in has costed more or not kept the interests of the people at heart. Privatization means that consumer driven forces and competition have more of an effect on the quality of the services provided, and that the competition keeps the prices lower...

I'll prove it:

My healthcare premiums from government mandated and subsidized healthcare are up 2000% since I started working. (That's about 20 years) In that time, the copayments have gone from $10 to $50.

My auto insurance is holding at $60/mo, but even when I had a sportier car it was $90/mo. It never went up and prices from competing vendors are similar. During that time my insurance provider has even added more perks including free rental cars, premium discounts, and roadside assistance at no additional cost.

The _only_ difference between these two industries is not what they do (insurance), but that one is privatized largely, and one is a government project. Which would you rather have?

I think as soon as the government gets involved you just get less service and pay more money, and history has born that out in my opinion.

 

[Stevicus]

Would you support nationalisation or privatisation of areas such as health, schools, prisons etc.? Why?

I support nationalization in general, although I can also see the case for some measure of local control as well, particularly when it comes to schools. As long as the people have the option of using public schools, then there's no reason private schools can't also exist. A national system of health care facilities could also exist in a similar fashion so that the general public would have access to a free and open system of healthcare. But that wouldn't preclude the existence of private healthcare facilities for those who prefer it.

I've never supported the idea of privatized prisons. There seems to be something wrong with that idea. It seems that the whole idea behind privatization is to increase consumer choice, but what sort of choice is there to going to prison? If it's all about saving money (in the belief that government is always wasteful and the private sector is always more efficient), then the best way to save money in prison costs is...to not send so many people to prison - unless they're violent, of course.

Some areas also have privatized fire departments. And some security companies might fit the bill as a privatized police department, so they may come next. Might as well have a privatized court system as well, in addition to privatized armies of mercenaries.

Heck, why not just privatize the whole government? And just like Corporate America changed the names of stadiums and college bowl games, different government buildings and departments would have their own corporate sponsor. The Geico U.S. Capitol building (with a statue of the Geico gecko on top of the dome). The Coca-Cola White House - which would be totally painted over with the famous red-and-white Coca Cola banner. All the presidential portraits inside would be redone showing each president enjoying an ice cold bottle of Coke. I figure Preparation H could be the perfect sponsor for the Supreme Court. Exxon would sponsor the Department of the Interior.

It probably would be similar to the society in the movie Rollerball (the 1975 version; I never saw the remake).

 

[Augustus]

The _only_ difference between these two industries is not what they do (insurance), but that one is privatized largely, and one is a government project. Which would you rather have?

The 'only difference' is that they are completely different industries.

Healthcare keeps improving, often at great cost. People live longer, often at great cost. New medicines appear to treat new ailments, often at great cost. The healthcare industry keeps on searching for new ways to monitise its customers, often at great cost.

Car insurance doesn't keep improving beyond fringe benefits. Car safety, security and road safety keep increasing reducing costs per person.

It's a terrible comparison (although Americans do get robbed blind on their healthcare).

 

[Augustus]

Would you support nationalisation or privatisation of areas such as health, schools, prisons etc.? Why?

Private schools and healthcare are fine, as long as they exist as alongside public provision. Nationalisation I see as problematic though as it ends up with very large scale bureaucracies. Public provision should be much more decentralised to the municipal level.

Prisons need to be run by the state alone, as justice must be accountable to the people.

 

[Laika]

Would you support nationalisation or privatisation of areas such as health, schools, prisons etc.? Why?

Don't know, so I Voted Gulag.

I'd need to look at the evidence to know for sure about which is better in which situation and why. Resorting to ideological explanations or abstract principles is tempting but I'm not sure. I'm obviously biased towards state ownership in providing public services like health and education but I could support private ownership if I had reason to believe it would do a better job.

As Deng Xiaoping put it: "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." The system of ownership should be judged based on its consequences rather than its intentions. That's hard to do though.

 

[Rival]

Don't know, so I Voted Gulag.

I'd need to look at the evidence to know for sure about which is better in which situation and why. Resorting to ideological explanations or abstract principles is tempting but I'm not sure. I'm obviously biased towards state ownership in providing public services like health and education but I could support private ownership if I had reason to believe it would do a better job.

As Deng Xiaoping put it: "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." The system of ownership should be judged based on its consequences rather than its intentions. That's hard to do though.

You can do better than that.

 

[Laika]

You can do better than that.

You can make anything sound good, especially if you turn it in to a question of principle. If the intention is to actually "serve the people" however, they deserve something that works and is proven to work. Big ideas can make economics sexy, but most people won't care because they will take the things that work for granted. Its only when their tap water comes out brown that they start to question the ownership of the means of production.

 

[Rival]

You can make anything sound good, especially if you turn it in to a question of principle. If the intention is to actually "serve the people" however, they deserve something that works and is proven to work. Big ideas can make economics sexy, but most people won't care because they will take the things that work for granted. Its only when their tap water comes out brown that they start to question the ownership of the means of production.

Lmfao this is far too true. Our tapwater actually stinks. I mean it really stinks; I won't drink it and when I do I have it hot, boiled in the kettle.

 

[Mindmaster]

The 'only difference' is that they are completely different industries.

Healthcare keeps improving, often at great cost. People live longer, often at great cost. New medicines appear to treat new ailments, often at great cost. The healthcare industry keeps on searching for new ways to monitise its customers, often at great cost.

Car insurance doesn't keep improving beyond fringe benefits. Car safety, security and road safety keep increasing reducing costs per person.

It's a terrible comparison (although Americans do get robbed blind on their healthcare).

Or all the costs in medicine are raising because here is no one saying how much anything should cost or that we cannot buy medication internationally. That doesn't mean you are getting better care just that you're being robbed.

 

[DavidFirth]

I don't know enough about health, schools and prisons to make an educated decision so I didn't vote.

 

[Augustus]

Or all the costs in medicine are raising because here is no one saying how much anything should cost or that we cannot buy medication internationally. That doesn't mean you are getting better care just that you're being robbed.

Americans get robbed blind for their healthcare and healthcare costs per capita have necessarily increased are not mutually exclusive positions.

Given perfect competition, healthcare cost per capita would still have increased over the past 20 years.