>>3
Well, what more 'should' it do, and by what right does it do any more than that? Why can't people take care of the rest? Why do people seem so eager to give up their rights and the money they earned so that the job of taking care of themselves be given up to so-called authority? And by what right do the sad people that 'are' willing to give up their rights and wealth to make it easier on themselves do so by taking the rights and wealth away from the ones that aren't?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 20:55
>>1
problem with corporations is that they're primarily motivated by profit. problem with governments is that they're primarily motivated by popularity. what we need is a third option which is primarily motivated by ensuring the people's rights.
Even with the third option, it would only be a matter of time till it was taken over by the first two.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 21:32
>>5
They're all motivated by profit, onlt businesses are motivated to deliver goods and services as efficiently as possible in order to gain profit, and government is motivated to cheat and steal as much as possible.
You can't privitize everything, because not everything has a good profit motive, (like driver liscences... who'll pay for that?) and we don't want everything to be profit driven (for example, a private military would just serve the ones who paid them the most money).
DMV probably is a good idea for government to stay in control of, because I think that falls under the umbrella of protection.
Name:
John2005-11-26 21:32
>>5
I'm just curious... What do you think SHOULD be a business' primary motive, if not profit? -_-
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 21:53
>>8
Read what I said carefully... I said that business's profit motive leads them to deliver goods and services as efficiently as possible.
Name:
52005-11-26 21:56
>>8
i never claimed that business' primary motive should not be profit. that would just be silly. i just believe that any services meant to provide for the safety and/or wellbeing of the people should not be motivated by profit, or popularity.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 22:55
I am a state worker. Our agency provides a valuable service and we are quite underpaid. Anyone that thinks the government is more corrupt than private industry is just plain stupid. Enron ring a bell? How about Tyco? The jobs we bid out are never as economical or competent as in-house.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 23:13
>>4
Once again, I ask "why". You say a lot of things, but all of them rely on assumptions.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 23:26
>>11
Yeah, you're from a government AGENCY. Not a government official. Agencies are sort of like non-profit corporations. They do their job so-so on a fixed income.
Government officials tend to give money and kickbacks to people they know and in order to buy votes, not to mention pet projects.
And in-house stuff is always less expensive than outsourcing. That's another middleman you have to pay. I beg to differ in terms of competency though; my experiences have always been that outsourced workers do a lot of the job they're hired for, so they're good at it. If you hire someone on your own to do something, you tend to have to wade through a sea of douchers to get someone halfway decent at the job.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 0:18
Yeah, you're from a government AGENCY. Not a government official.
That's a very... strange way of looking at things. Do you make this distinction based on company and CEO too?
Excuses, excuses.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 0:20
good topic, i've thought about this occasionally but never had the spirit to post it on the internet
i usually try to compose abstract laws which determine whethjer something is better off privatised or nationalised, but i can't be botherred right now to expand on this issue with you
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 0:34
>>14
Uh, no, you're stupid. YOU aren't neccesarily corrupt because you work for the government, you don't have much of an insight into their accounting. Even the head of your agency wouldn't have any insight, because the ones who deal with allocating the vast majority of the money are separate from you. You're given a set amount of money, and you're expected to do your job. If you don't do it, you're subject to inquiry. The government is given as much money as it wants, without much of any expectation of performance.
...it saddens me that I have to explain this.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 5:46
>>16 YOU aren't neccesarily corrupt because you work for the government, you don't have much of an insight into their accounting.
Changing the argument now, are we? Haha!
This was about government agencies and how they relate to the overarching government structure, not individuals.
You're given a set amount of money, and you're expected to do your job.
You mean, like a corporate department? Oh shit, I thought the executives all gave them unlimited funds!
...it saddens me that I have to explain this.
Says the twit who doesn't understand corporate structure.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 9:12
asshole
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 11:36
...it saddens me that I have to explain this.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then leave this site, you fucktard pompous turd.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 11:43
Does school function better when private? If so, why do we even have public schooling?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 12:36
people don't want to have to pay for school, state schools function as free care homes for kids, in the eyes of asshole parents
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 12:59
Not paying for schools? ever hear of taxes? What a fucking retard!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 13:04
i would much rather schools were privatized. i dislike having to pay taxes toward and education system that i'm not using, haven't used for years, and just taught me a lot of stuff i don't use now. same applies to pretty much all of the other non-essential systems the government pays for with my money.
It wasn't the head of corporate departments who started the whole enron fiasco; it wasn't the people out there making sure those transformers worked and were pumping power to millions of homes who cooked their stocks to make themselves look profitable.
In fact, government officials are directly analogous to the enron and worldcom fraud perpetrators; they were both not actually in the business they ran and managed, they just dealt with all the money (and stock in the case of corporations).
Stop splitting hairs. You understand what I mean and you know it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 14:22
>>23
THEN HOW WILL THE POOR NIGGERS BECOME EDUMACATED?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 16:05
Cheap schools. Or Kumon. I love Kumon, they introduced me to DBZ and DQ on VHS.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 16:06
same applies to pretty much all of the other non-essential systems the government pays for with my money.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
suck my cock.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 16:32
This place is full of masterdebaters.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 17:09
It wasn't the head of corporate departments who started the whole enron fiasco
HAHAHA! Excuses, man, excuses! What next?!
Oh god damn it, you're embarassing yourself.
Because you say so, it must be true!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 18:05
yes, dildo, it's true.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 21:29
I'm sure they can make cheap private schools in impoverished communities. You don't see government colleges and universities, I don't see why an all private school system can't be affordable and effective.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 21:52
I don't see why an all private school system can't be affordable and effective.