To have one without the other? You mean pubic funded fire brigades that are managed by a private company? Yeah I can see that. On the other hand though, I see a lot of problems with a privately run police force. For example if the chief of police was making a profit from fighting crime, why would he not expand his business by creating more crime to fight?
What criterion do I use to say the government shouldn’t make twirly straws but should collect tax for (and possibly run) fire brigades? The nature of the service and how fundamental it is to society. Also a strong consideration should be put into the negative effects that personal interests can create. If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, poor people wouldn’t get any- but that wouldn’t be such a big deal. On the other hand if fire brigades were run for profit and have private interests- poor people’s houses would burn to the ground with fire crews doing nothing but maybe toasting a marshmallow over the flame. Even worse, maybe when business is quiet, a fire station may light some fires.
This may sound a bit vague but like I said I think it’s a concept and not an actual system. The concept I subscribe to is that the back bones of society should be funded and maintained by the government. In some cases, This maintenance can be subcontracted out to private companies rather than micro managing- but not always (not for police for example). Any further than these fundamental social services is most likely going too far and will have too much of a stifling effect on the economy.
On the other hand though, I see a lot of problems with a privately run police force. For example if the chief of police was making a profit from fighting crime, why would he not expand his business by creating more crime to fight?
Only if you pay him by criminal caught, as opposed to making him part of an insurance company that is responsible for reimbursing people victimized by crime.
The nature of the service and how fundamental it is to society.
Food is fundamental to society, should all food production be government controlled?
If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, poor people wouldn’t get any- but that wouldn’t be such a big deal.
If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, another company would get into the straw making business and start making affordable straws.
Food is important and it is supported with tax payer money by some governments for that very reason. I think government action on it should be considered. Of course no changes should be made if the system isn’t broken and and if they do it should be for the better or not at all. I’m not advocating socialism just for the sake of being socialist. When private is better- it’s better.
About the straws you fully missed the point. What i’m saying is no matter how bad someone screwed up the straw industry it won’t be a serious blow to society. By talking about supply and demand you are changing the subject
Actually I am under the impression that the main effects of agricultural subsidies are to make food cheaper for people in the First World who are already eating (more than) enough, while making competition for Third World farmers much harder.
To have one without the other? You mean pubic funded fire brigades that are managed by a private company? Yeah I can see that. On the other hand though, I see a lot of problems with a privately run police force. For example if the chief of police was making a profit from fighting crime, why would he not expand his business by creating more crime to fight?
What criterion do I use to say the government shouldn’t make twirly straws but should collect tax for (and possibly run) fire brigades? The nature of the service and how fundamental it is to society. Also a strong consideration should be put into the negative effects that personal interests can create. If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, poor people wouldn’t get any- but that wouldn’t be such a big deal. On the other hand if fire brigades were run for profit and have private interests- poor people’s houses would burn to the ground with fire crews doing nothing but maybe toasting a marshmallow over the flame. Even worse, maybe when business is quiet, a fire station may light some fires.
This may sound a bit vague but like I said I think it’s a concept and not an actual system. The concept I subscribe to is that the back bones of society should be funded and maintained by the government. In some cases, This maintenance can be subcontracted out to private companies rather than micro managing- but not always (not for police for example). Any further than these fundamental social services is most likely going too far and will have too much of a stifling effect on the economy.
Funny that you mention that. The US police works basically on this model and yet it is government-controlled...
Only if you pay him by criminal caught, as opposed to making him part of an insurance company that is responsible for reimbursing people victimized by crime.
Food is fundamental to society, should all food production be government controlled?
If the only drinking straw company decided it was going to make gold straws, another company would get into the straw making business and start making affordable straws.
Food is important and it is supported with tax payer money by some governments for that very reason. I think government action on it should be considered. Of course no changes should be made if the system isn’t broken and and if they do it should be for the better or not at all. I’m not advocating socialism just for the sake of being socialist. When private is better- it’s better.
About the straws you fully missed the point. What i’m saying is no matter how bad someone screwed up the straw industry it won’t be a serious blow to society. By talking about supply and demand you are changing the subject
Actually I am under the impression that the main effects of agricultural subsidies are to make food cheaper for people in the First World who are already eating (more than) enough, while making competition for Third World farmers much harder.
I’ve seen a relatively upbeat spin on that phenomenon, although I’m not sure how seriously to take all of that article’s empirical claims.