Login/Sign Up




Government is one big monopoly
Politics

dkturner
Sep 18, 2009
1 votes
6 debaters
2
1


+ Add Argument

0
Yes, and that's okay


apathetic
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

Robert Nozick talks about the potential for privatized goverment (or as he calls them personal security agencies) in his book Anarchy State and Utopia.

The problem with private goverment? In-fighting, no justice for the weak/poor and eventually you get beat up by somone goverment that has a monopoly.

 
thevenerablerob
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Well, in theory, there are multiple checks to keep the monopoly of Governemnt to 'beat up' on the little guy. the Private sector is much larger than the public sector. About 85% of industry is non Government related industry.

If we did have contracted private Governemnt, it would be ripe for corruption, socialism and possibly even communism. If an unscrupulous private Government somehow connived its way in, what is to make it be booted out? At least now there are methods of toppling a Government or impeaching unruly leaders. The Press and opposition are all over any bad move a leader might make, which keeps the leader in relative check.

As such, I can't see any benefits of a private government over those of a public, monopolized government as we have now. maybe if you expound?

 
+ Add Argument

0
Yes, and that's a problem


dkturner
Sep 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

How on earth could you suppose that private implementation of government might lead to communism? Isn't the very nature of private interests contrary to the notion of "spreading the wealth"?

"What is to make it be booted out?" Well that's easy, isn't it? If you don't like their services, buy the same services from someone else. Anybody offering poor service at high prices would quickly find their budget shrinking.

Which side of the healthcare debate are you on? Do you believe that government-run healthcare would be better than the choice between a variety of private healthcare schemes?

Apply the same logic to, say, the provision of fire services. A cynic such as Terry Pratchett might suggest that private fire services would offer guarantees against their own arson, for a price. But then if they threatened arson, your private security company would make short work of them.

Who says the law can't be implemented by multiple providers?

I'd argue that the United States is a more efficient economy than the United Kingdom because of a higher level of privatization. Does that not argue for more privatization? The downside is that there's less of a safety net, less of a "nanny state". Which is why I want to have this debate.

To my knowledge, nobody has actually tried private policing, although in South Africa private policing is arguably the de facto state of affairs. And those private security companies are a hell of a lot more efficient than the cops. The police department's idea of efficiency is to constrain the use of police vehicles* (meaning they respond to fewer incidents). The private security's idea of efficiency is to respond to a call within three minutes. Figures are hard to come by, but I reckon the costs work out much the same.

* See http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_News&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=vn20090918034841430C372563

 
dkturner
Sep 20, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

Actually, if you ask economists, they'll tell you that it was Reagan's (actually Laffer's) nutty idea that you could cut taxes and still quadruple the defense budget that sent that national debt up from $700bn to $3tn. Combine that with the savings & loan crisis and you get a period of economic instability.

There's no evidence to suggest that deregulation had anything to do with it (unless you have some that I haven't seen?)

 
dkturner
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
It's a problem only because it is not possible to compete with government services. In other words, it's a legislated monopoly. Why not allowed private competition for government services? It would benefit everybody (except perhaps the civil servants).

 
dkturner
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: apathetic Show

As opposed to getting beaten up by someone's government that has a monopoly right now?

 
jonjax71
Sep 19, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

In 1980 when Raygun became president of the USA he began the privitization of government through de-regulation-the beginning of the demise of the US, a price we are still paying dearly

 
dkturner
Sep 20, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kleban10 Show

You don't care about the way your country's run?

 
watchman81
Sep 20, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

Him and most of the rest of the oblivious American population.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong