Privatization

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

http://hotdogfactory.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-stephen-harper-going-to-sell-jasper.html

There is a rumour being passed around via email and facebook saying PM Harper is planning to privatize Jasper National Park (5 hr drive from here) with considerable uproar. Would you Libertarians in this community really support private enterprise to run your national parks?

You Libertarians say you want smaller government. Government is inefficient and untrustworthy. So how far would you allow private corporations to rule your country? Would you sell off your Park Systems? What about environment controls? The Post Office? The Military? The CIA and Secret Service to be put on tender for the highest bidder? Or how about the Senate? Screw elections how about whomever raises the most cash simply wins their seat in the House of Representatives and Whitehouse? Why or why not?

Comments

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Not a Libertarian myself: However:

"Would you sell off your Park Systems?"

Nope.

"What about environment controls?"

Please be more specific. Do you mean letting private companies take over the jog of watchdog agencies?

"The Post Office?"

Nobody's going to want to buy the United States Post Office. It's becoming more obsolete all the time thanks to competition with e-mail and FedEx.

"The Military?"

No. I don't want our military being replaced with Boba Fett. :p

"The CIA and Secret Service to be put on tender for the highest bidder?"

The CIA sucks. Might as well ditch 'em. Not so sure about the Secret Service though.

"Or how about the Senate? Screw elections how about whomever raises the most cash simply wins their seat in the House of Representatives and Whitehouse?"

It matters not who's in the Senate much or how they got there. None of them actually serve their constituents anyway.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Environment watchdogs like Ministry of Environment or Environmental Protection. If run by private corporations they would be more interested in finding and handing out fines to polluters because these fines are a main source of profit. Government agency doing same job have less of a profit motive, for they receive budget no matter how many or how few polluters they catch.

I assume both private and public are susceptible to corruption and bribes, although I also assume government agencies have more integrity.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

"I assume both private and public are susceptible to corruption and bribes, although I also assume government agencies have more integrity."

I don't. Bribery and corruption government officials is rampant in China. The only reason it isn't more rampant in the west is because we have a free press to expose such things.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

"The only reason it isn't more rampant in the west is because we have a free press to expose such things."

Bullshit. Bribery and corruption are rampant in places like Greece, Jamaica, Mexico, etc where the press is very free. It's been part of regular business in the construction industry from time to time (plumbing inspections go smoother with a bottle of Crown Royal) in USA and Canada.

I'd like to say we have more integrity here in North America compared to "those other places", but I would much rather pay a cop $50 cash bribe then pay a $100 speeding ticket. No integrity on my part anyway.

Part of it is a cultural thing here. Part of it is that there's less disparity in the pay scales here. Part of it is the consequences of getting caught.

Corruption is one of the most difficult things to control and get rid of. Once it seeps into being a normal part of doing business, it's there for a long time.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Ah, point taken.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Would you Libertarians in this community really support private enterprise to run your national parks?

Yes. The state doesn't need 'em.

What about environment controls

I think there's places where such controls might be needed when it comes to interstate issues.

The Post Office?

Long, long overdue, but my Postal Monopoly Hobby Horse is well-known.

The CIA and Secret Service to be put on tender for the highest bidder?

This, no. It's an arm of our military, really.

Or how about the Senate?

I'm also on record as against direct election of Senators, since that's supposed to be representative of the states.

Screw elections how about whomever raises the most cash simply wins their seat in the House of Representatives and Whitehouse?

This is silly.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Yes. The state doesn't need 'em.

It's not about what the state needs, it's about what the people need. While I doubt very much (well at least I hope) the rumour about Jasper Park being sold is true, if you follow the links given in the OP there is a story about public access points already being removed due to corporate partnerships that currently exist there. National parks shouldn't belong to businesses, they already belong to the people.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Thanks again for sharing your always unique perspective.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Problem is, it's far from unique.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

"Our military"? Really? I don't recall Obama consulting me before invading Libya. I don't even recall him consulting "our" supposed representatives, as "Our Constitution" supposedly reqires him to do. How blatantly obvious does the farce have to get before people will question their presumptions about political authority?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

What are the Constitutional requirements for a military? I'm unfamiliar.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

Congress raises an army but can not appropriate for more than two years.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't a private military, CIA, FBI be more efficient cost and otherwise? Without the wasteful overlaps, the burdensome bureaucracy, the costly mismanagement, etc a corporate military and police force would likely save tax payer billions of dollars!

The candidate that raises the most cash obviously has the greatest support of the people. Isn't this what democracy is all about?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't a private military, CIA, FBI be more efficient cost and otherwise?

It might be, but it's not right for the private sector to be enforcing public laws and security.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Why not?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It shouldn't be up to the private sector to enforce the public sector's laws.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Why? Wouldn't they do just as good of a job, if not better? So what's the difference?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They might, they might not. The point is that the government should be responsible for for enforcing the laws it wants to enact.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Who enforces their laws does not remove/absolve responsibility of government for laws it created. Government would always remain ultimately responsible. Your suggestion doesn't make sense. Please explain.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't understand your confusion.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Why would government not be responsible for laws it enacts if police or military was privatized?

So if Obama sends in USMC to wage war in Iran, it's responsible.
If Obama sends Blackwater Soldier Of Fortune to wage war in Iran, it's somehow not responsible?

If the FBI is sent in with Agents Mulder and Scully to investigate paranormal activity, the government is somehow responsible, but if they send in Ghostbusters then they're not?

So if CHiPs gives you a speeding ticket, the government is responsible, but if Joe's Traffic Enforcement Company did the same, the government is no longer responsible?

Do you see my confusion? It doesn't matter who the government hires to enforce it's law, the government remains responsible for having said law in it's books. The government being responsible to the people.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why would government not be responsible for laws it enacts if police or military was privatized?

Privatization is outright moving that responsibility away from the government. A good idea in many cases, but not all. The government actually does have a role.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

They remain responsible for whatever private contractor does, in the same way a CEO is responsible for actions of lower management. It gives them some ability to divert/shift responsibility, wash their hands of mishaps, but like I said in comments to you above, the government remains "ULTIMATELY" responsible.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

If private sector is hired to uphold public sector's laws they should be able to do just as good of a job, hopefully lowering costs to the government while maximizing profit with more efficiency.

The only difference I can think of is the public's trust of government police, military, etc. I trust public or private military would not be bought off by the hightest bidder, committing treason. I trust that like a public municipal police force that a corporate municipal police force would be equally susceptible to bribes from private run jails to arrest more able-bodied men for their cheap labour.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Well, some might not have a chance actually. For example, Niall Ferguson keeps insisting that there's another way of addressing (and paying off) enormous public debt (he prescribes this for Greece in particular, but the US too): privatization of infrastructure and other things, I suspect including national parks, too.

That approach, of course, fails to explain how would the system be reformed in any way, to prevent further indebtedness. So what would happen is paying that debt one time, privatizing a lot of stuff, and then the system piling a new debt again. He's healing the symptoms, not the disease.

Back to square one, then?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Obviously, selling off something (or a bunch of things) is an opportunity to make a quick buck. Especially if it is something you paid very little for and/or built up over a extended period of time. Hopefully you sell at a profit, rather then a loss.

Fast money from selling assets is a one time opportunity. Once sold it's gone... unless they get into the business of consistently buying low and selling high.

But here's the thing, the government is a large multi-faceted business. Some of it's assets may not be realizing their full potential (maximizing profits) or may even be operated at a net loss. The government is so large it's easy for it's assets to get lost and hidden in this massive bureaucracy. Trimming the fat can only make it leaner; able to concentrate on the main business of governing.

On the other hand if the government isn't raking in profits from it's assets, it has to turn to other means of revenue like taxation.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

I would be OK with the government retaining ownership and oversight while privatizing the maintenance and other administrative duties. Selling it, though? I think that should be up to the voters.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Most of your post reaches too far but running national parks & the mail system are definitely two areas geared for privatization.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Why are they geared for privatization?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

It amuses me to see the presumption of the non-libertarians that the government is somehow superhuman, as if government were not just one more human corporate enterprise which, unlike all others, presumes a monopoly on violence to ensure its rents. The presumption is backed and obscured by the superstitious worship that we dub "patriotism."

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

How very textbooky.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Have I mentioned how much I love my faithful detractors, lately? I do.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

You're giving me too much credit.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Why can't private corporations compete directly and get in on this business of patriotism?

Patriotism is just another brand loyalty. If private enterprise advertisers can't compete in patriotism, then it's marketers should be fired. Either that or you must admit these corporations offer an inferior product.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Enterprises in the private sphere do not have a monopoly on violence and initiatory coercion.

"Enterprises" which compete in the patriotism category of brand identity are competing for the monopoly priviledges of providing their "services" without competition to a captive market which must purchase. They are a special class of enterprises called "governments" and their operations are called war. Their monopoly status should be rejected by people everywhere.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

There's a huge list of PMC's operating globally... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_military_companies


These SoF's and PMC's operate not just for governments, but for private contractors like Halliburton, and for NGO's with humanitarian agendas. Their operations are usually security, but also assassination and full out battle.
War? Well that's just a rose by another name.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

They do not enjoy a violence-enforced monopoly, other than the fact that their best (but not only) customers do enjoy such a monopoly priviledge.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I'm against privatizing National Parks simply because there is no way to make a business of it without monetizing it to hell and destroying everything in the process. There's no way to have a Forest Service that is a profit-turning business. There's no way to make money on it, unless you turn it into something else-- which people don't want. The idea that privatizing is just "the same thing" with a different owner is terribly naive.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

So it's ok that the national parks be operated at a net loss if it preserves the integrity of the park?

Integrity. See that's the thing under my thumb on this issue. I really don't care who owns my park, who delivers my mail, or who is sent over to bomb Iran. I mean not really. But I do feel that government is somehow more accountable. Not that if my mailman screws up I have any better chance of having management hear my complaints. But no matter if it's the US Parks Service or USPS, there's a sense of integrity there. At least in my mind.

There is no guarantee that a privatized Yellowstone Park would have more billboards, or dump toxic sludge down the backside of Grand Teton. Not anymore guarantee then US Parks and Rec would. But there's a sense of integrity with a government service.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I think what you're hitting on is that the government has legitimacy because we've consented to let them govern through voting (or not voting). This is pretty important when you're taking away someone's freedoms by locking them up or starting wars. Not so important when you're delivering the mail, I'm fine with having UPS deliver my stuff.

I also checked out the article, it seems like a private company is getting a concession in the park, not that the park is being privatized. Maybe there's a different definition of pirvatization in Canada, but it seems overstated. In US parks, concessions run by private companies aren't uncommon. Most of the hotels and restaurants inside US parks are run by private companies for example. These are things the government doesn't really need to get good at.