i <3 stossel, part 536312

[caspian_x]

John Stossel in this article pretty much sums up why I think the government should keep it's grubby, in efficient hands out of healthcare, agriculture, education (at least to less of a degree than it already does), transportation, space exploration, and pretty much everything else it has taken upon itself to remove from the private sector without

Comments

[ikkarus01]

Personally, I don't trust the government or the private sector, and for the same exact reason: they are made up of selfish pricks.

[caspian_x]

So the alternative is...?

[ikkarus01]

There isn't one. Not a good one, at any rate. There are no selfless people working for the Good of All and there never will be. As far as I'm concerned, swinging far enough in either direction brings on the Dark Future. It's just a choice of whether the Megacorporation or Big Brother will be in charge.

[caspian_x]

The Free Makret works for the good of all. If we didn't keep breaking it and just let economics do its job, we'd see that. Benevolence, like everything else, should be a private sector thing. Not public.

[coffeejedi]

I think its an incredibly simplistic argument. Re-structuring society would like that would drive the divide between the haves and have-nots even further. Also, they haven't taken anything away from the private sector. You're still free to open a transportation company, messenger service, academic institution, insurance company, or anything else that the government does (even militaries, ie: Blackwater and Wackenhut)

As Vector said, corporations are beholden only to their (wealthy) shareholders, and could cut out things like school-lunch programs or financial aid for healthcare simply because they weren't turning a profit. Hey look how efficient we are now!

Space exploration? At this point in time there's absolutely no motivation for private companies to get involved. Pure research is best handled by a public body like NASA in conjunction with institutes of higher learning. Stossel's a moron if he thinks that a corporation would lay out any cash on something like the Mars rover or Hubble for any other reason than PR.

[caspian_x]

Re-structuring society would like that would drive the divide between the haves and have-nots even further.

I disagree. Basic economics tells us that the ONLY way to reduce prices for everyone is to allow competition and free markets to thrive. Governments controlling things and introducing price floors and price ceilings benefit a few people but make us feel good. It does not benefit the overall economy.

As Vector said, corporations are beholden only to their (wealthy) shareholders, and could cut out things like school-lunch programs or financial aid for healthcare simply because they weren't turning a profit. Hey look how efficient we are now!EXACLTY. They'd be free to do that, and you'd be free to take your kid elsewhere. COMPETITION would dictate that they'd be stupid to try such an idiotic move. Your comment is very telling. We are so entrenched in a society with a government ruining the free markets that we don't even THINK that way anymore. We just think "Oh man, we'd be stuck without a lunch program!" a free market is just

[coffeejedi]

Space tourism != space exploration.
While its cool and sexy to fly people up and back down in a high tech jet, there's no scientific value in it. Real research is done with radio telescopes and interplanetary sattelites, valuable for knowlege but there's no monetary gain. I cringe every time some blowhard politician talks about slashing NASA's budget as a "wastefull expense".

[caspian_x]

A fair point. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about research in the hands of government. On one hand, for things like medicine, I don't see why it needs government intervention. Medical breakthroughs are profitable, they should get plenty of private capital. On the other hand I know that not all research is profitable and some is necessary, so I don't know if the private sector is up to the task. I'll have to look into this more...

Other than research though, I can't think of anything - including healthcare - that needs to be run by the government.

[k_sui]

Generally, things like polio vaccine and penicillin were funded by the government because the government's inertia makes it very hard to stop funding something once it has begun. Therefore, while less efficient in the sense it lacks profit motive, it is also less likely to respond quickly to the capricious nature of the All Mighty Market. Polio vaccine would never have been discovered by modern day companies like Pfizer because they demand more immediate monetary results and are less inclined to allow extended trial and error.

[ikkarus01]

Also, "cures" are a hell of a lot less profitable than "treatments".

[k_sui]

Every time I feel like the most cynical person on the face of the planet, someone inevitably steps in with a darker view of human nature than mine.

Kudos to you, good sir.

[ikkarus01]

I think all the bad things so others won't have to. This is my gift to the World.

Re: One Reason Why I Am Not A Pure Libertarian

[caspian_x]

Yes, but you got to choose. You got to try all three services and decide which was best for you. This is what should happen with healthcare.

Re: One Reason Why I Am Not A Pure Libertarian

[caspian_x]

Fair enough, but that's only your experience. In general, I think shipping is done better by private companies.

Also, the only reason shipping is as good as it is in the USPS is because there is competition. As Stossel states, until UPS and FedEx came along, the USPS said overnight delivery was impossible. So if anything, I'd call that an aberration because usually when the government controls something, you have no competition.