there are the extremes, the libertarians claiming most things should be privatized and the socialists saying that most things should be nationalized. But isn't there some things that the private sector would best be in charge of? and at the same time shouldn't there also be things that the public sector would be best left in? Can there be a healthy mix of the two? or should it lean in one direction?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Whatever floats your boat.
The problem with something being nationalized is that if you don't like it, you have no alternative besides leaving the country.
When something is run by a private organization, there may be another private organization doing the same thing, and doing it more to your liking.
Of course, this is not always the case, because of monopolies. These can arise for a number of reasons. Probably the most common is that they are tied to the monopoly of government in some way.
That's basically it.
As far as private organizations go, there's always Microsoft; It has enough marketshare to be an effective monopoly, so your alternatives suck.
Leaving the country won't help because MS is everywhere, even 'Communist' China.
Courts of justice should probably not be privatized.
The UK & other european countries have a fairly balanced mix of public & private, e.g. most western-european healthcare is state-owned/run. This does make sense, in my opinion, as essential healthcare is not something that should be used to profit.
>>5
I don't use any Microsoft software, so it's not a total monopoly, but you are right that it's hard to avoid for some people. Note that copyright law, a government-granted monopoly, prevents competitors from reverse-engineering Windows to modify it and create improved versions, and that many government agencies -- in the U.S. and abroad -- publish in, or require documents submitted in, proprietary Microsoft formats.
>>7
Well, the obvious response to that is the more essential something is, the more you need alternatives, lest your sole provider fuck it up. Health care is troublesome, though, because the whole "market economy" thing depends on people acting rationally. If you got hit by a car and your brain's bleeding, you can't exactly make an informed decision which ER to go to.
This is a serious problem, I think. Neither public nor private health care appeals to me as it is. I've heard horror stories about both.
>>7 surely nothing should be used for profit - don't we only put up with capitalism because we don't trust people to help each other voluntarily?
>>11 duplicated resources can provide a more reliable service, but this can be achieved publically by coordinated duplication, without the wasteful duplication that private competition creates
Whatever's most efficient/effective. There are many instances where strong, public national health care programs can save the private sector billions in employee benefits. But this isn't always the case. I have a hard time imagining the US's huge pharmaceutical and health-care industry going public, but maybe I lack imagination.
>>12
Coordinated duplication by the government? OK in theory, but it still means one bad decision by the government can fuck the whole system.
The reason for a market economy (I try to avoid "capitalism" as it's a more loaded word and I'm not sure it means quite the same thing) is basically that incentives are a very powerful thing. If your friend asks you to review his writing as a favor, of course you're a nice person and you'll get around to it, but meanwhile your life is busy, and you might end up losing the paper and having to ask for another copy. Now suppose you get $100,000 for reviewing that paper, you'll get to it sooner, right? Not because you're greedy or only care about money or anything, but you do have some common sense.
So likewise, imagine a group that provides health care. They all have good intentions and do generally decent work. But if they get the same amount of customers and government funding regardless of performance, they'll tell you the plan to get around to implementing those much-needed improvements soon, they really do... they're just a bit overwhelmed. If millions of dollars hang in a balance, however, that group will find a way.
So deprive them of any increases in budget unless they improve each year.
> OK in theory
Indeed. I think political discourse could use a bit more empiricism.
I'm interested in hearing about private health systems that Work. The only one I've paid any attention to is largely a failure, so I'm interested in hearning about the rest.