PatsFanInVa

I started thinking over on the firefighters-letting-the-home-burn thread, that we have an area we can talk about and, if we don't "stick to our (usual) guns," maybe make progress.

Here is the big question: are we captives of our ideology, or can we address spheres of activity from the point of view of what's appropriate to each phenomenon?

A Stalin would say that the Party would handle all such things, through the apparatus of the state. An Ayn Rand would say there should be no unit other than the individual. Both fail.

What do I say? I say there are phenomena that call for groups to act on behalf of their members, and that includes the notion of a society. This is, in fact, echoed by our founding fathers. Those same founding fathers were also champions of the rights of individuals. They understood that ideological purism was a danger not only in terms of an over-reaching state, but also in terms of a plutocracy; they did not specify an exchange rate for votes when they established democracy, after all.

Now let's break this down a bit. I notice that in many, but far from all, cases, conservatives like the idea that our body politic should be more moral. Yet as stipulated by other conservatives - or oddly, those same ones - the reduction of every interaction to one conforming to capitalism inherently removes the moral virtue of compassion.

Liberals like compassion, yet are lambasted for the notion that they will spend any amount to extend any compassion to any person. While I disagree with that assessment, I've met - infrequently - the "librul" we hear about here, who does not see any point to counting the costs of their intended largesse.

My question is this: why do we assume there must be a single ideology, a single sphere of action and type of action, that must address all phenomena?

For example, in the firefighting thread, it becomes evident to me that taken to an extreme, a subscription service for fire emergency service makes no sense. Everybody has the potential to need it. Why should some individuals be able to not "opt in" to it?

The eventual outcome must be either (a) that most people do not pay, or (b) that before we get to that point, firemen must stand around and watch homes burn, in order to set an example and therefore guard against moral hazard.

But this is all assuming that firefighting should be part of the private sector, rather than a public sphere.

When we ask, as we often do, what happened to this virtue or that virtue, it is easy to point a finger at an ethnic group and call them "savages," as I have seen here repeatedly, or point at different behaviors and claim that the people engaged in those behaviors are bad and ruining the world. And of course we can claim it's all because of this or that value taught by the other side. But think a moment.

There's no reason to think that more "bad" babies are born now. We all adopt attitudes having to do with a multitude of influences, but we have also always had bulwarks of society that prevent individuals with "bad" inclinations from acting out their "badness." It's never been foolproof, and frankly, crime (for example) is not actually on the increase. But we all pine for more community, or better morality, or more intellectual rigor with each passing year or decade.

It would seem that we can lay this at the doorstep of whatever we don't like politically; but what can we expect, if we take the existence of a public sphere - of society itself - to be an evil to be defeated, rather than a repository of the virtues we espouse?

"Community" can be encouraged, but there is no room in the private sector for such mawkish sentiment -- because the very existence of community assumes a sphere outside of private sector interaction.

I am not trying to make a case for left or right, I am putting forward a way of thinking about spheres of life. And the question is, whether we should encourage public spheres, where it does not matter what you own or make?

Taken to an extreme: Should you pay a fee every time you go in a church? Should they have a toll booth? Should they examine the collection plate when you drop a buck in, and say "I know you're a pretty big sinner, a buck won't do it..." Should religions go back to selling indulgences?

Should parks have play-meters for kids that vend time, and doo-doo fees for dogwalkers? Should the merry-go-round and the swings have a vending device on them?

Should lifeguards ask you for $X before diving in to fish you out?

I don't think I'll find takers for those examples. Yet in similar cases, I see an ever-increasing rush to promote some private-sector understanding of an activity that all of us benefit from, that extend the virtues of community, and that are public goods.

So, straightforwardly: Is there no room for various societal institutions our parents took as givens, things we keep around because they are good things for a society to have? Or must society only exist as an extension of private enterprise?

I'd prefer thoughtful responses only.

Thanks,

PFnV

PS, one-star guys, let 'er rip!

apple strudel

I don't know if this counts as a thoughtful response or not (in your eyes, at least), but you can do a lot more for the dollar with public services than with private services because of economies of scale and the elimination of profit. This is exactly why privatization advocates fight so hard against new public services (health care): private corporations know that they can't compete with an organization that can charge less because it doesn't seek to take money.

The real question, in my opinion, is not whether we need a public sphere (obviously we do), but whether it will be possible to fight the massive influx of private wealth that is now influencing politics to even maintain out existing public sphere. The erosion of public schools at the expense of charter schools is the current battle. The next battle, believe it or not, is the fight to keep the police a public institution. We should all remember that the FBI used to be a union busting private company. And it was not a good situation for the people at large.

khayos

And this is where your assumption fails. No funds are better managed than a shopkeep and his cash register. The larger the organization, the greater the waste.

apple strudel

Not even close to necessarily true, and also not an assumption, just basic math.

Take that waste, add private profit on top, and which is more expensive - the public monopoly or the private one? Or even the private oligopoly? Yup. (Tip: we have been trending towards private monopoly for thirty years in an ill-advised attempt to re-create the economic conditions of the later 19th century.) Finally, of course, we have seen massive corporate consolidation over the last few decades. Tying up markets and eliminiating competition raises prices even higher than in perfect competition and leads to greater corporate waste. The issue is not one of greater or lesser waste, but on of public or private expenditure.

Some interesting information on corporate consolidation:

Corporate Consolidation: Some Facts and Figures —

PatsFanInVa

Sorry to be such a d1ck asking for thoughtful discourse only.

I just want a thread that steps back to the extent possible from hardened positions. There are a thousand flame-wars out there, I just wanted to talk about the basic assumption of having a society LOL...

It's not that I don't have my own positions - it just seems like the idea of finding privatized alternatives to everything, accelerating commoditization of every walk of life, is finding too much traction of late to ignore. I question this on communitarian grounds, not right or left grounds.

How can we simultaneously make arguments about the frayed fabric of society, yet in the next breath say there is for all intents and purposes no such thing as society?

Very simply put: Are there areas of life where commoditization is a bad thing?

For example: should all sex be a species of prostitution? Should religion be the selling of indulgences (as mentioned above)? Should we do away with libraries, and only buy (or rent) books? By the same token, should militaries be privatized? The police?

If there is a well-thought-out argument for these positions, is it really better than the alternatives? In other words, isn't it clear that it is better that the U.S. (or any other state) have a public military rather than warlords or corporations raising private armies?

Here is the thing: in formulating our responses it would be helpful if we avoid the ideological trap on this one. I think the above answer is that yes, the national institution is to be preferred.

So what are the differences that make the profit motive a bad organizing principle? Or, for you objectivist Randians, what is the principle -- other than quasi-religious adherence -- for the profit motive being the preferred principle even in these extreme cases?

PFnV

Harry Boy

I'll have to think about this for awhile.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

TBradyOwnsYou

Thanks for the update!

I believe Government is there to do for society what it can not do for itself. Things like firefighting, police, schools, parks, etc... Do I have kids? Nope. But a big chuck of my property taxes go towards schools. My house isn't burning down, but my taxes pay to keep firetrucks running. Do I think our government does any of these things efficiently or correctly? Heck no, but that's why I vote.

PatsFanInVa

TB, that's a pretty good response -

I think (if I read you right), it's

1) private sector preferred, except where not applicable (what society "cannot do for itself")

2) Those things should fall into the public sphere (i.e., society taking care of society)

So it's sort of a sphere that exists by default, in those cases where the usual mechanisms (i.e., private sector, I think) fail.

I am not trying to set a trap, I am trying to line up your response w/that question of private sector/profit motive & "everything else." When I see that gubmit is there for what society cannot do for itself, I am reading that to mean, for those things you can't adequately provide through market mechanisms... (?)

TBradyOwnsYou

I fear no traps when I've got Ewoks on my side!

The one example I can think of off the top of my head is garbage removal. In some communities it's not profitable so the local government uses tax dollars to remove it for us so we aren't living in filth. However, in some communities private companies have come in and are now doing the job cheaper because they are able to recycle the trash in one form or another and make some money on it.

PatsFanInVa

Okay now that's an answer that really works with me - figure out if it's working/workable, and whatever you do, have a working system. Then go to another system if it's established that it will work better in that circumstance.

(just recapping)