The lessons of Ireland

Dr Galen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

there are very many things in this country that could and should be privatised. I'd also be an advocate of smaller government. Mainly on socially based reasons though. I'd say that people should have freedom to do what they want as long as it's not doing harm to others, (in a broad sense of course)

We have no need for the government to be involved in the provision of telephone services. The private sector can do it much better than they can for a cheaper price. The main issues these days with phone services in this country appears to be with transmission/local loops etc, all owned by former state body Eircom, an inefficient mess.

Bus and rail services again should be out of government hands. The case of the UK was pointed to, and true it was a disaster, but there are several cases of a privatised system that works very well. With the right safeguards in place contractually, so that rural communities etc don;t become isolated, it could and would work well here too.

Health I'd feel is a state responsibility. I have no issue with private facilities though, in fact some of the privately run hospitals in this country provide a better service level than many of the public. Funnily enough, I had a long chat with the CEO and Medical director of one such place over the weekend, a place that I would regard very highly in terms of clinical efficacy and care, and they are looking at turning a nice profit this year. So good luck to them for that. Without root and branch reform of the public health services though, any money saved by getting out of any of the above services will be swallowed up by the abyss.

The idea of melding the libertarian ideals of DF and the social democracy model could work out, but I doubt anyone in the political class of this country would have either the support or the balls to push this through. Which probably meas that in 15 years time, this same discussion will be had again, following the recession of 2021.

Please do send him around! Should be an entertaining afternoon.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall on that day. Poor man wouldn't know what hit him!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree completely with this and most of what you have said on the thread TBH despite not agreeing with your overall desire of libertarian anarchy.

I'd leave some government controls in place and think certain services such as roads should be kept public but I can't see any reason why something like trains/buses etc... or phone lines should be publicly owned.

It doesn't make sense, we have shown it doesn't work so lets fix it and privatise it properly.

What do we always get when the State attempts to provide services? Monopolies, unions, waste, inefficiency, resistance to change, and ceaseless demands for more money, more resources, more bodies, more facilities to make things better. It just doesn't work.

Your badly needed on the Commuting & Transport forum in the bus dispute thread :P

edit---

Almost forgot to talk about the article, its bollocks.

jmayo

Donegalfella, sorry don't have time to reply to all your points, but even though we differ on many points we probably very much agree that the system as is, is a bags and needs to change.

One thing difference between food and water is I only have one water pipe into the house so can't change that.
Bottled water, as I discovered from being away in pretty expensive European city, is more expensive here than petrol I believe.
It's a bit rich seen as we have buckets of the stuff landing on us everyday :rolleyes: Oh and it is provided by free market companies as well

BTW I am not anti privitisation.
For example we wouldn't be facing problems in Dublin public transport these days if it was taken out of the hands of a state monopoly that is archaic and run for the benefit of the would be Karl Marxs that runs the unions in said insititution.

jmayo

thebman wrote: »

I agree completely with this and most of what you have said on the thread TBH despite not agreeing with your overall desire of libertarian anarchy.

I'd leave some government controls in place and think certain services such as roads should be kept public but I can't see any reason why something like trains/buses etc... or phone lines should be publicly owned.

Phone lines should not have been privatised, since national infrastructure and now badly in need of upgrades.
I don't see it as any advantage to transfer a monopoly from public hands to private hands. If anything it can only make the service worse and the private sector owner often comes back to the state looking for handouts in the future to upgrade the infrastructure.
See UK railtrack, see uk water services.

Only advantage is state coffers gets short term gain by selling infrastructure.

Transferring monopoly to private hands means you are still hostage to a monopoly and no advantage.
All other phone providers are hostage to Eircom today.
Yes the services that runs over the lines can be privitised.

thebman

jmayo wrote: »

Phone lines should not have been privatised, since national infrastructure and now badly in need of upgrades.
I don't see it as any advantage to transfer a monopoly from public hands to private hands. If anything it can only make the service worse and the private sector owner often comes back to the state looking for handouts in the future to upgrade the infrastructure.
See UK railtrack, see uk water services.

It can work though in private hands if done right. It depends on the company that takes it over.

I can certainly see the argument for keeping it public and in eircoms case it probably should have been kept public and access sold to private companies at cost of maintaining it rather than to make a profit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmayo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes there can be sucesses but what about Sth American countries who privatised (often at behest of external influences) their water systems and how the prices skyrocketed and ordinary citizens had difficulty paying for it.
Watch what will happen over next decade in UK, you will probably have water companies clamouring to government looking for grants etc to upgrade the systems.

If key infrastructure is owned by private sector entity then there is need to recoup often high intitial investment and then dividends to shareholders etc. This then leads onto little or no reinvest in the infrastructure and when it does come time to reinvest you find the state often has to step in anyway.

At least with public sector owneership, we can screw our political representatives and make them do something about it using the public purse.
Please note that is what happens in normal functioning democracies but sadly not Ireland where we just put up with it. Watch Galway elections as example.


I don't think infrastructure that will always be a monopoly should be privately owned by any individual or group.
Thus with roads, railway lines, water systems, power grids and fixed telephone links.
Maybe as a kid I watched too many westerns where the evil rancher blocked the water from the sodbusters

Regarding services I think the state should provide certain basic services: healthcare, education and a safe living environment for the citizens.

Would you privatise our police force ?
The more arrests the more profits or would that be less arrests the more money saved ?
Would you privatise social services ?
The less children taken into care the more money saved ?

BTW because I believe in state ownership of certain entities doesn't mean we need village idiots governemnt in Dáil Eireann to oversee it's running. If anything their interference cocks up more things than not.

Bringing in MS is you jumping back to your old argument about choice of vendor. I do have choice of going Mac OS, Debian or Sun etc etc.

With key infrastructure and certain services you wouldn't have a choice.
For most people there would only be one hospital in your area, only one police force, only one railline and for most of us there is only one power line, only watermains to our house.
Yes i can change the suppplier of the product over the pipe or wire, but if the ones owning the pipe or wire let it fall apart who do I complain to ?
Do I go to their AGM and kick up a stink ?
See Eircom as example once again.....

Oh and AFAIK Coca Cola didn't see much of a difference between bottled water and mains supply :rolleyes: Bit like Peckham Spring I guess

dreamlogic

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A person can be self-interested whilst also taking the view that the society they live in is a better society if their neighbours are looked after also.

maninasia

jmayo wrote: »

Phone lines should not have been privatised, since national infrastructure and now badly in need of upgrades.
I don't see it as any advantage to transfer a monopoly from public hands to private hands. If anything it can only make the service worse and the private sector owner often comes back to the state looking for handouts in the future to upgrade the infrastructure.
See UK railtrack, see uk water services.

Only advantage is state coffers gets short term gain by selling infrastructure.

Transferring monopoly to private hands means you are still hostage to a monopoly and no advantage.
All other phone providers are hostage to Eircom today.
Yes the services that runs over the lines can be privitised.

What I have seen work and work VERY WELL in other countries is the maintenance of a state operator but with 2 or 3 strong private operators allowed to operate in the same turf. This allows the back-up of the state operator for certain routes and infrastructure creation combined with the flexibility and aggressiveness of private operators. The private operators also put pressue on the public operator to provide competitive services and keep pressure on them to open their infrastructure for all to use.

bokspring71

jmayo wrote: »

Big business is also a vested interest
e.g US energy and oil companies.

Everything is a vested interest, even the government. Can the world, as currently configured, run without oil? Can it run without government?

jmayo wrote: »

Do you think that one of necessities of life, water, should be owned by private individual or group ?

The answer is that no one group of private individual or group can ever "own "water. But if you want it piped to your house, someone has to "own" the pipes, and the pumps and the other infrastructure necessary. You should be free to refuse their pipes and pumps and infrastructure if thats what you want. Is that what you want?

jmayo wrote: »

How would you measure sucess for a school ?
Would you measure it in how many pupils achieve Grade A in Honours maths ?

Yes. How would you measure it? Would you measure "failure" in achieving Grade A in Honours maths ?

Success is in achievement. Lack of success is in non achievement.

AS to "privatising" the police, then if it means they are accountable, then that might be better than the current position where they seem to be fairly unaccountable to those living in terror to thugs in places like limerick and tallaght, and whose estates are un-policed, and where the thugs rule. Of course its not easy, but we have choices and a society where many live in fear and terror because the police are, themselves, afraid to enfoce the law and allow law abiding citizens to live free from thuggery, is a society which needs change.

jmayo wrote: »

Oh and AFAIK Coca Cola didn't see much of a difference between bottled water and mains supply

If foolish people want to buy bottled water, whether from coca cola or elsewhere, then the suppliers are fools not to supply it. You can't legislate for stupidity.

eamonnm79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You must be in favour of the Sinn feins proposals so. I dont think I would vote for them but a good idea is a good idea.