LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOK - a simple proposition, but one it appears some disagree with:
Governments are the appropriate provider of some services.
OK - a simple proposition, but one it appears some disagree with:
Governments are the appropriate provider of some services.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Such as and why?
Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them.
- [SIZE=2]Niccolò Machiavelli[/SIZE]
I'd be in favour of libertarianism.
Policing, free schooling up to 18, free healthcare for all and roads.
Everything else you pay for. Tax would then be in the region of 5% to 10%.
I suppose my own view would be - any service where the provision of the service solely by individuals or groups would lead to or perpetuate gross inequity.Originally Posted by Bobert
That's a left-wing view, obviously.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Rubbish collection and disposal (the private ones rip you off and are total cowboys, dumping illegally)
Water supply (i believe in ownership and control over the water by the people)
Prison service (who would want corporations profiting by locking us all up?)
Education (as it should be available to all, and it isn't in private systems)
Maybe even banking. I mean, allow companies to trade stocks and all, have a free market, but keep the banks in the control of the people. Otherwise it is difficult to maintain stability in society.
Essential utilities, education, health and law enforcement as other posters have pointed out, don't need to be out of the direct control of the population of the country, and don't need a profit margin tacked on.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's an awfully braod topic there ibis.
It might as well read: Are you an anarchist (Yes/No)?
Considering that all the services listed above have been provided volutarity (ie without coercive taxation) I would be tempted to say none.
But if you can find an ethical way of funding for this government and it this institution wouldn't forbid me from using alternative service providers I'd be all for it.*
Granting a monopoly provision of a service to a government can only mean one thing: the price of the good will ultimately rise, and the quality of goods will eventually decrease.
*edit: I just realised that if this criteria were satisfied, it would not be a government, but rather a club of sorts.
So I stand by my claim: none.
Last edited by 20000miles; 14th March 2009 at 06:07 AM.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
¦
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wrong-see refuse services. And then study health provision.
Gardai but not necessarily prisons.
The provision of health treatment should be on one list, but the standard of room being the only variant.
Social welfare and social on an emergency and shortterm basis only for able bodied people.
Social care for old, sick and disabled.
Education up to third level should be provided on an equal and quality basis (including ensuring children are well fed and clothed. Literally a nanny state)
Social workers for abuse cases but also to monitor any children failing in class, smoking before 18, drinking before 16, drugs, absent from school and problems with the law.
R&D fund to commericlise innovation.
A nominal defence force.
A courts services.
Other than that abolish dept of agricultre, social and family affairs, arts, gaeltacht (the language may do better without support save for gaelscoileanna), defence.
Combine transport, energy, marine,into a dept. Of strategic planning for major infrastructse.
Then review local government - does it need to do all that it does and do they need to do so on a county basis.
You have advocated this before and it sounds very much like Mary Harney's proposal when in the first flush of PD youth. The problem is of course, what is to become of those without means when the 'shortterm' expires? You are hardly suggesting that we revert to Victorain standards complete with work houses etc., are you?
Reply With Quote