[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
I hope you don’t mind, but I’ve responded to this in private rather than on the list, as it’s getting very off-topic now. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 05:24:56PM +0100, Ralph Smithen wrote: > Thank you for your thoughtful response :) > > 2009/6/16 Benjamin M. A'Lee <bma-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Less government spending means fewer public services — like the NHS and > > emergency services, state schools, rubbish collection, public transport > > (still a public service in some places, like Plymouth Citybus, owned by > > the council and much cheaper than the private First busses), road > > maintenence, and so on. Which of these would you like to cut spending > > on first? If anything, most of them could do with more funding, not > > less. > > To simply answer the question, I would doubtlessly cut state education > first, as I firmly believe it's responsible for more harm than good. > My retrospective now, informed by studies of developmental psychology > and education, confirms the impression I had when assigned to the > stupid gulag: that schooling was only detrimental to my learning. See > these links for more information: > http://www.johntaylorgatto.com > http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling I strongly disagree. If all schools were private, where would the money come from? Would all families be charged for their children’s education? (Directly, that is, as opposed to paying out of taxes.) Would the prices be regulated? How would quality of education be regulated? How would you make sure that schools in unprofitable areas continue to operate, rather than maximising profits (or at least minimising losses) by relocating? How would you make sure that schools in poorer areas can provide the same quality of education as schools in richer areas? Home schooling leads to even greater issues. All parents would have to try to give their children a broad enough education to be useful. This is exactly why schools exist — so that some people can be good at teaching, and the rest don’t need to worry about it. I don’t disagree that the education system is in need of reform. I’ve plenty of complaints about the university system, for example. I just don’t think dismantling state education is the solution; far from it. > > The answer isn’t privatisation, either: I’d argue that where services > > have been privatised (British Rail, BT, water, gas, electricity) the > > service has gotten worse, not better; the competition in these sectors > > leads to loss of quality, not lower prices, and without competition, > > private companies have no incentive to provide a better service. > > Taking the example of British Rail (cherry-picking again :P ), it > seems to me there is no competition. The price of tickets is the same > regardless of what service provider you use. All companies are > subsidised heavily. This is not true privatisation, and there is no > free market, so no incentive to provide better service at a lower > price. The pricing scheme, whereby a single ticket costs, for > instance, £40 and a return costs £40.50, I find especially to be an > affront to reason. Ah, that’s true — I apparently cut out the bit where I commented on this. Someone made the point to me recently that nationalisation makes the most sense where there’s a natural monopoly. There’s no sensible way for train companies to compete — trains running on the same routes have to be regulated for safety and simple practicality. In my opinion, the rail network should never have been privatised — private companies can’t compete, can provide no better service, and simply complicate matters. I’d be interested in hearing how you might propose organising the rail network in the private sector. > > The quote that came up randomly in my sig earlier might apply here: > > > > “…a return to ’free’ competition means for the great mass of people > > a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of > > the State.” — George Orwell, in a review of The Road to Serfdom > > (1944) by Friedrich Hayek > > I didn't realise that was random - what a fabulous coincidence! Why > exchange a public tyranny for a private one? I do see the point being > made, and I've enjoyed reading Eric Blair's work, but I must > respectfully disagree. I do have quite a lot of quotes on the subject, so it wasn’t actually that unlikely. :) > […] > > Getting back to the subject of monopolies in the free market, I > encourage you to watch this video from a modern and perspicacious > philosopher: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQms0-jSYqM > > I can provide you with textual references if you don't enjoy or prefer > not to watch his presentation :) I don’t have or want Flash Player installed, but I’d be interested in text sources. > > The government is accountable (through elections) to a far greater > > extent than private companies are. > > Companies could be restrained by the courts rather than government. If > enforcement were in the hands of private individuals, lawsuits would > quickly make companies bear the costs of production, such as > pollution. That's accepting your assertion that the government's > responsive and accountable, which I don't particularly find to be the > case. Have you seen the declassified history of testing biological > weapons on the British public? There was a good Grauniad article on > it: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,427%203,4398507,00.html True. Accountability requires transparency; firstly, though, I’d argue that government transparency has improved somewhat since then, and secondly, that government is in general more transparent than business. There’s no reason, furthermore, why the government shouldn’t be responsible to the courts; look at the US system, where there have been a number of high-profile cases against the government (or, at least, that have affected it). A codified constitution is probably helpful in that sort of situation. > Do you approve of such testing being carried out on you and your > family? Do you believe such tests are no longer ongoing? Who is > accountable, again? I don’t pretend that the current government is perfect — far from it. I have many complaints about every government (and the Opposition, for that matter) in this country since 1979. I just don’t think that the libertarian party’s policies are the way forward. > […] > > > Further, these groupings and common interests are the basis of > > modern society; civilisation depends of groups of people working > > together for the common good (which is why, for example, some people are > > doctors and some are farmers, rather than everybody having to rely on > > themselves to do everything). > > Division of labour is not predicated upon membership of groups. What > are you saying here? What I was trying to say, and not explaining very well, is that nobody is *just* an individual; everybody is part of numerous groups. The groups in and of themselves don’t have rights, but the individuals in them have rights predicated upon membership in that group. (Of course, they have responsibilities too.) > > That’s a rather extreme view of things. You appear to be equating the > > welfare state with Soviet Russia. > > Well, my views are rather extreme in this prevailing political culture > of Fabian socialism. I do equate big government and collectivism with > inevitable tyranny. When there's a monopoly of force and power in a > society, it seems to attract the worst deceitful psychopaths around, > which I can back up (as if that were necessary) with this LA Times > article someone just serendipitously posted to facebook: > http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/politicians-and-serial-killers.html > By the way, did you know that Gorbachev actually referred to the EU as > the "New European Soviet"? > > >> […] > >> Big business is aided and abetted, and indeed simply couldn't continue > >> to squeeze the poorest sectors of society, without the help of > >> government. The wealthiest ruling families, the ones that have their > >> money in international financial institutions and tax-exempt > >> foundations, love socialism! > > > > Strange, because it seems to me that in the USA, big business has a much > > stronger foothold than here, and they have that foothold because of > > Reagan-era (and earlier) free-market capitalism — certainly not > > socialism of any sort (look at all the uproar because Obama is perceived > > as being ‘socialist’, for example). I honestly can’t see how you get the > > idea that socialism is in favour of big business. > > Obama works for Wall Street and moneyed interests, not the people > (like all those at the head of socialist regimes). Have you seen the > film "The Obama Deception"? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw Well, that’s my point: he’s far from being a socialist, yet just because he’s slightly more left-wing than the US norm, that’s what he’s branded as. > Do you know what Nazi stands for? In case you don't, it was shortened > from National Socialism. Mussolini said that fascism should, more > properly speaking, be called corporatism as it's the merger of state > and business power. It was found by Norman Dodd working for a > congressional committee in America in 1953 that the tax exempt > foundations (Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.) were working to > comfortably merge the systems of capitalism and communism. > http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm Honestly? Margaret Thatcher made the same comparison with the Nazis, and it wasn’t valid then. Hitler’s policies bore no resemblance to socialism; in economic terms he was centre-right. In fact, communists, socialists, and trade unions were some of his earliest targets. (German politics in the ’20s and ’30s was quite strongly polarised, the Communist Party on one end of the spectrum and the Nazis on the other, and all of the left-wing groups were opponents of the Nazis, and often scapegoats too — for example, the Reichstag Fire.) It’s not possible to “merge the systems of capitalism and communism”, since the two are fundamentally opposed. You can’t have capitalism without individual property and wealth, the abolition of which is a major goal of communism. > There's a whole world beyond the version of reality given to you by > school and the mass media, where the ruling families that own > everything of consequence control (albeit incompletely) what happens > both in the business world and our puppet democracy. The study of how > secret networks and intelligence agencies covertly manipulate our > society is called parapolitics. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapolitics > > It has a far more respectable ring to it than "conspiracy theories", > wouldn't you agree? ;) I’m not sure it’s any more believable, though… > > One of the roles of government, in my opinion, is to protect individuals > > from big business — making sure that they have decent wages and working > > conditions, and go on strike if necessary to get those things without > > fear of retribution. > > So the government's never engaged in strike-breaking, occasioned with > extreme violence? I believe I can provide examples to the contrary... I didn’t say that it fulfilled that role. One of my big objections against Thatcher’s government is the way it handled unions, especially as regards the miners’ strike. > > The welfare state exists in part so that people > > aren’t slaves to big business profiteering, and don’t need to worry > > about where money and healthcare will come from if they lose their job. > > (I’ve heard it suggested that the lack of socialised healthcare in the > > USA is stifling business, because people don’t dare quit their job and > > start their own business because their job likely includes health > > insurance for them and their family, which they wouldn’t have if they > > were self-employed.) > > That's an interesting perspective. I do believe in healthcare for all, > but I don't think the current system is giving the best service > possible. I'd sooner see a system closer to that in France, where the > insurance is public, but citizens are empowered to some extent to > choose where they get their health care in a market. > http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/health.php Personally, I’d like to see the NHS improved to the point that the choice is unnecessary. I don’t trust a completely private system (look at the state of the US healthcare system), and though France’s system would be better than that, I don’t know if the added complexity would be beneficial. For a start, there’s the risk of the problems that the rail network has, where the private companies can’t compete to a useful extent; alternatively, they compete and quality of service suffers as a result. -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: bma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 “People demand freedom of speech as compensation for the freedom of thought which they have but seldom use.” — Søren Kierkegaard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html