News Should Police Services Be Privatized?

[Al68]

I claim that business rules government.

That has no meaning unless you are claiming that government in turn rules someone else on behalf of "business".

Again, what person is being ruled?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

Interesting argument. Believe you or I am naive. You might come up with something more convincing.

 

[fatra2]

What you are talking about would be referred to as liberalism ("liberalism" as in the 19th to early 20th century definition, not the modern definition meaning a big-government supporter) I think, or maybe free enterprise or free-market capitalism.

Not from the few books I read on capitalism. I also agree with you that capitalism should not be mistinterpreted with a political system. Capitalism is a society system. I also agree with the fact that pure capitalism should not be implemented, since it happens (rarely, but it happens) that people are very unfortunate, and society should help them also.

As for:

It's like democracy. We all consider democracy as good, but in its purest form, democracy is just another form of tyranny, same as dictatorship.

From my understanding, democracy is defined as a government ruled by the people, normally through a voting process. In its purest form, it sounds pretty good to me.

I also agree that no country in truly in this form of governing. Some try to get as close as possible to it. But it is still the best system around.

Cheers

 

[Char. Limit]

That has no meaning unless you are claiming that government in turn rules someone else on behalf of "business".

Again, what person is being ruled?

Why, the non-rich, of course.

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

I eagerly await this example.

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

From your different posts, I can only imagine that you live in the US. You should also know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, it is only possible to present some people that have been caught. But I want to believe firmly that the others are good, honest people, doing a tough, honest job.

Cheers

 

[Al68]

Not from the few books I read on capitalism. I also agree with you that capitalism should not be mistinterpreted with a political system. Capitalism is a society system. I also agree with the fact that pure capitalism should not be implemented, since it happens (rarely, but it happens) that people are very unfortunate, and society should help them also.

I think the point was that unlike other economic systems, capitalism isn't "implemented", imposed, etc. It just exists.

I think it's more accurate to describe a free market capitalist economy as specifically the lack of an economic system, rather than a system itself, since it's the lack of an "imposed" economic system that characterizes it.

We don't typically refer to other activities that free people engage in just because it's not prohibited as part of a "system". We would call it a lack of a system.

 

[Al68]

Why, the non-rich, of course.

Do you have any evidence that I (non-rich) am being ruled by "business" through government?

Also, to prove my belief in cynicism wrong, please present an impossibility: an honest politician.

I eagerly await this example.

You'll be waiting a long time, few are more cynical than me. Of course I don't consider it corruption for government to leave people alone. Just the opposite. I consider restrictions on economic freedom to be the enemy of the people.

 

[Char. Limit]

Do you have any evidence that I (non-rich) am being ruled by "business" through government?You'll be waiting a long time, few are more cynical than me. Of course I don't consider it corruption for government to leave people alone. Just the opposite. I consider restrictions on economic freedom to be the enemy of the people.

Evidence: It is against the law (government) to steal, unless you are in charge of a company (Enron, etc.).


I am cynical off the charts. Like I said, I believe it doesn't matter who is elected, they are all slaves to the lobbyists of K Street. Even the president. However, I did make a mistake in pointing the finger at just big business: I forgot about special-interest groups (ACLU, etc.).

 

[Al68]

Evidence: It is against the law (government) to steal, unless you are in charge of a company (Enron, etc.).

First, that's not evidence for your claim that I'm ruled by business through government. So, I'll take that as a no, you have no evidence and you're just spouting hateful nonsense.

Second, do you have any evidence that it's not illegal for someone in charge of a business to steal? Sounds like just some weird delusion to me.

 

[Nebula815]

From my understanding, democracy is defined as a government ruled by the people, normally through a voting process. In its purest form, it sounds pretty good to me.

I also agree that no country in truly in this form of governing. Some try to get as close as possible to it. But it is still the best system around.

Cheers

Well, the problem with "pure" democracy is that it's tyranny of the majority. Dictatorship is tyranny of a minority. Both are bad. You want a system that protects the minority from the majority and the majority from the minority.

 

[Nebula815]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

The thing is, it is excessive regulation of Big Business that causes it to lobby the politicians like crazy. Big Business will in general leave government alone. If government seeks to regulate business however, business then will seek to regulate the government.

For example, Wal-Mart used to be a tiny presence in Washington. But since they have become the target of unions, politicians, and various other groups and interests, they are now among the top lobbyists in Washington.

That is why conservatives emphasize limited government as much as possible. You keep government as limited as you can, and thus you limit the influence of the various special interests in Washington (and the state capitals for the states) as much as you can.

 

[Pattonias]

I claim that business rules government. Just look at all the Senators and their masters, er, lobbyists.

Fact: All politicians are corrupt.
Fact: Disagreeing with the previous fact is a sign of naïveté.

I don't think simply writing fact in front of your statements really qualifies as proof on this forum.

naïveté - interesting that you took the time to write that out correctly in French.

What is your definition of corruption? At what point did you become the least "naïve" person and became the best judge of others "naïveté"?

Its just that making statements like these leave no room for argument on the real issue. Whether you think your vote matters doesn't change the fact that your vote, in addition to your peers, are what elect your officials. All the way from the local level to the top. If you feel that your vote is not enough of a contribution to get your personal ideals acknowledged, then perhaps its time to start volunteering to support your favorite runner. Those who collect the largest support base are the ones who get elected. Perhaps you should start directly supporting those who you think would better lead.

Do you vote?

 

[kote]

Evidence: It is against the law (government) to steal, unless you are in charge of a company (Enron, etc.).

Ignoring a lot of other nonsense for the moment, do you realize Enron's CEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay" was found guilty in a criminal court and would be in jail right now if he didn't die?

Also, he was the son of a poor preacher and delivered papers and mowed lawns before earning a PhD and working his way up. Damn those rich people keeping the poor down.

 

[Pattonias]

Ignoring a lot of other nonsense for the moment, do you realize Enron's CEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay" was found guilty in a criminal court and would be in jail right now if he didn't die?

Also, he was the son of a poor preacher and delivered papers and mowed lawns before earning a PhD and working his way up. Damn those rich people keeping the poor down.

Never mind their background, once they are rich they immediately become an oppressive bastard. Weren't you informed in the recently published manifestos?

 

[mheslep]

But that "right" is not infringed upon, nor is anyone planning on doing so...

The ability to buy private insurance has been infringed upon in several countries, and there as aspects of the same thing planned in the US.

 

[mheslep]

Er... the "them" in the second quote refers to traffic cops, not health insurance termites. And, yes, profiting off someone's LIFE is a moral wrong. [...]

It is not at all clear what that means - "profiting off someone's LIFE". You likely mean in the sense of profiting by saving an individual from a fatal situation. Even in the most extreme versions of that scenario the morality of profiting is not always clear to me. Consider, e.g. organ donation. Large numbers of people die annually for want of a transplant, and far and away the reason is a lack of donors. Yet lifting the ban on organ buying/selling with all the troubles that entails would vastly increase the number of donors, a point widely recognized even by opponents (of which I probably include myself). Thus "profiting" would clearly save a great many lives. So which is the moral path?

 

[Char. Limit]

Bah, I can see that I am not speaking well.

No, I do not vote. But I will... when I turn 18.

Next year!

 

[mheslep]

It was my understanding that with universal healthcare systems, conventional insurance goes away completely. Is that not true? [...]

Some provinces in Canada until a recent court decision (2005?) banned by law the operation of private health services. The UK has private insurance/services alongside its government system (NHS), but (1) it is extremely expensive as participation is very small (~single digit percentage), (2) in many situations NHS rules are that, if one ventures outside of the government system to obtain, say a drug or operation denied under NHS, any further medical service for that illness is denied under NHS.

[...]So it is a practical reality that there is a reduced freedom of choice in Canada that some Canadians work around by coming to the US to access a system that is more free.

This addresses, I think, availability issues under the Ca. government system, a different issue from whether or not one was prevented legally from offering/buying private services.

 

[Pattonias]

Bah, I can see that I am not speaking well.

No, I do not vote. But I will... when I turn 18.

Next year!

I am glad that you vote (or plan to) because that means that when we are taking the time to debate the issues we then plan to do something about it. I once argued with a guy about politics for over an hour before he finally revealed that he refuses to vote. I felt there was no point in discussing it anymore because my opinion was the only one that would be heard. There really isn't any point to arguing politics with a non-participant.



I also wouldn't want Diddy to get you "VOTE or DIE!"

 

[Dale]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

The US health care system is the worst health care system except for all of the others that have been tried. (OK, that's probably an exaggeration, but the US system is not as bad as conventionally portrayed)

Honestly, I find it rather surprising that Char.Limit simultaneously wants the government to control health care and at the same time believes that politicians are corrupt. I agree wholesale with the latter which is why I always seek to limit the power of politicians rather than increase it.

 

[Pattonias]

What defines the "worst health care system"?

 

[Dale]

You could use a variety of metrics, as mentioned in the article. I think the most telling one is patient satisfaction. The point is that there are many quantifiable metrics by which Americans have better health care than citizens of socialized-medicine nations.

The main metric by which our health care system is worse is cost. So if you want to fix a real problem, focus on costs. Access is not a real problem.