An honest question for Liberals

[Stunt]

This is one of those crucial questions I ask myself relentlessly as I discover myself politically (a never ending process in my opinion).

I find it noble that liberals want what's best for all people through institutions run by people themselves. As you may notice from my posts here there are many issues where I disagree with the liberal mindset. This is merely because I feel liberals tend (some more than others) to turn away from the practical application of what they preach. Now don't take this the wrong way, conservatives can be no better; inflating numbers, being over-optimistic and turning away from facts they don't want to hear.

My question to Liberals is: Many of you preach a stronger role of government, more control of currently private jurisdictions, and more collective/inclusive social programs. Why is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed? Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

If you disagree with this comment, tell me what social program in your eyes works well. In my experience, I find the private sector has been far more concerned with my business and issues than any government institution. Maybe this is because businesses are customer focused and must achieve quality/service excellence or else they will go under and get replaced by the next guy. Can the state really offer the flexibility and needs of a diverse nation's people or is it really as easy as saying everyone gets the same.

Private industries certainly have the resources and motivation to research what people really want and can evolve to suit, government can not. For me, social programs are like a Model T Ford...domestic, works, black and that's it. Why disappoint everybody when competition, flexibility and motivation can give you many brands, options and character?

One man's view...cheers.

 

[43st]

Government can have a very positive role in the community. It's just been painted black for so long it's hard to see on anything other than the local level. I was born and raised in coal mining country in Pennsylvania. The fallout from acid mine drainage is horrible. The streams are orange with all the mine drainage and they support no life. My father worked for the PA state government organizing local citizen groups to apply, and take responsibility for, mine reclamation funding and programs.

Private companies would've never touched this... it has no profit. But the state did, and it's having wonderful effects on the local environment and community.

That's just one of many such programs, almost always started at the local level.

 

[Moonbeam]

Love

 

[Jaskalas]

A bigger stronger government leads to a police state. Those who advocate for a larger government might not realize the true dangers of feeding the beast until you notice small signs like the Patriot Act. I can assure you that stripping of our rights is only the beginning.

 

[Witling]

Jaskalas, I've got to admire a guy who can raise the Patriot Act in a thread about what's wrong with liberals.

Stunt, let me give you one example of why unbridled capatilism is not a good idea. In straight-eight capitalism, environmental effects don't come in to the equation. If I can increase my profits by flushing my waste down the river, hit it colt! One practical example of this is that California outlawed hydraulic mining during the gold rush because streams were literally being ruined. Chrysler and Harley Davidson would be out of business in straight capitalism.

 

[her209]

What if social program contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder much like military contracts are rewarded?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: her209
What if social program contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder much like military contracts are rewarded?

Try selling the idea of selling Medicare to the lowest bidder to the elderly leftwing.

People want the best, and they want it on someone else's tab. Culture of entitlement.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: StuntPrivate industries certainly have the resources and motivation to research what people really want and can evolve to suit, government can not. For me, social programs are like a Model T Ford...domestic, works, black and that's it. Why disappoint everybody when competition, flexibility and motivation can give you many brands, options and character?

Or sometimes don't work. But in any case privatization is not a cure for all things. The whole privatization/public control debate is too ideological. There are flaws with state controlled and privatized systems. Look at the US private health system with its enormous costs (per capita spending on health twice as high as in the UK and Europe, and health of residents not so high); or the UK system which functions better but with large inefficiencies based on the principles of equal treatment and no charges (allocation by queueing). What we need is an appropriate compromise designed by economists not partisans.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: StuntWhy is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed?

Because what you are saying isn't true. Even you don't believe that ALL public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed. I guarantee you that if your house was on fire, you would call the public fire department without thinking twice.

Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

Because fixing a lot of these social programs/institutions requires more funding, or what you would call "expansion of state." Notice I didn't say "ALL" like you did. I don't want to generalize. I think we need to improve programs that can be improved, cut fat where needed, and increase funding where necessary.

 

[BlancoNino]

Because for each dollar we poor into social programs, only a a dime gets spit out after it goes through the labors of beaurocracy, as opposed to nearly the whole dollar going into effect with private charities, churches, community service projects, etc.

Another problem is that when a government program or operation is doing poorly, they claim it's because it's underfunded...just the opposite is true in the world of free markets...if they are underfunded, it's because they are doing poorly.

Things need to police themselves. Not every government program will be needed, just like private businesses exhaust their use and can't make profit, but the difference is that the private business will find its way out of the system when necessary whereas the government program will either stay and be effective or create ways to stay in effect.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: StuntPrivate industries certainly have the resources and motivation to research what people really want and can evolve to suit, government can not. For me, social programs are like a Model T Ford...domestic, works, black and that's it. Why disappoint everybody when competition, flexibility and motivation can give you many brands, options and character?

Or sometimes don't work. But in any case privatization is not a cure for all things. The whole privatization/public control debate is too ideological. There are flaws with state controlled and privatized systems. Look at the US private health system with its enormous costs (per capita spending on health twice as high as in the UK and Europe, and health of residents not so high); or the UK system which functions better but with large inefficiencies based on the principles of equal treatment and no charges (allocation by queueing). What we need is an appropriate compromise designed by economists not partisans.

I'm sure it's cheaper for everyone to use one service, but are you confident people are satisfied with such a system? Here in Canada people don't have access to diagnostic equipment and put up with massive wait times. Many Canadians travel to the US as the Canadian system cannot provide for them. There is a price, whether it's up-front or in the neglect of citizens; one cannot use that as an argument.

Just because it is cheaper for everyone to take the bus doesn't mean everyone should be forced to take the bus. There are many modes of transportation out there and if you confine people to the bus, they will do nothing more than take the bus for all eternity. The opportunities lost are individuality, innovation and competitive forces. The US healthcare system is so broad and versatile, to compare it to generic coverage offered by the public system is unreasonable. That's not to say there isn't a place for a compassionate social safety net like welfare; it just cannot begin to represent private offerings.

 

[theeedude]

Business model doesn't work with social services.
Just simple economics. In business, the products or services are directed to those with most resources, while social services need to be directed towards those with least resources.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: StuntWhy is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed?

Because what you are saying isn't true. Even you don't believe that ALL public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed. I guarantee you that if your house was on fire, you would call the public fire department without thinking twice.

Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

Because fixing a lot of these social programs/institutions requires more funding, or what you would call "expansion of state." Notice I didn't say "ALL" like you did. I don't want to generalize. I think we need to improve programs that can be improved, cut fat where needed, and increase funding where necessary.

1) I would call the fire department because they have a monopoly on their business. Of course when you take away options from a person, they will follow your path, but who are you to say the path is the path we should all take. I don't want your black model T Ford, why force one on me?

2) Everything requires more funding, that's the excuse everybody uses for a service which is not sustainable. Your statements are empty ideals mirroring the effects of capitalism and a competitive marketplace. "Cut fat", "Improve", these should be expected from any organization. Government cannot create this culture as there is no fear of bankrupcy, job-loss, or loss of business. It is a massive inefficient corporation with a monopoly on businesses in the name of good while castrating our livelihood, personality and rights.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Business model doesn't work with social services.
Just simple economics. In business, the products or services are directed to those with most resources, while social services need to be directed towards those with least resources.

Odd, how come the biggest most successful companies in the world have excelled by offering services to people with the least resouces?

Walmart, Toyota, Google and many others have geared themselves towards low-cost, quality, and practical products. Do you think the US government could ever be so innovative?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Love

I don't think any government has, had, or will have, the capability to love.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm sure it's cheaper for everyone to use one service, but are you confident people are satisfied with such a system? Here in Canada people don't have access to diagnostic equipment and put up with massive wait times. Many Canadians travel to the US as the Canadian system cannot provide for them. There is a price, whether it's up-front or in the neglect of citizens; one cannot use that as an argument.

Just because it is cheaper for everyone to take the bus doesn't mean everyone should be forced to take the bus. There are many modes of transportation out there and if you confine people to the bus, they will do nothing more than take the bus for all eternity. The opportunities lost are individuality, innovation and competitive forces. The US healthcare system is so broad and versatile, to compare it to generic coverage offered by the public system is unreasonable. That's not to say there isn't a place for a compassionate social safety net like welfare; it just cannot begin to represent private offerings.

Issues of queueing and a one-size-fits-all policy will drive richer people to private care. These are flaws in existing nationalized health systems. I am not arguing for them. A proper system will not have queueing but a price mechanism.

Now the US has some good treatment. But at a huge expense. Looking at a 2002 chart, 12% of GDP as compared with 6% in the UK (public and private). And the GDP per capita is higher of course. What the main cause is of these costs I do not know exactly - insurance issues or litigation issues or over-training of doctors (are there different levels of qualifications?). The fact that 12% of the massive US GDP is spent on health care suggests something is wrong. If Americans lived much longer than Britons or had far fewer debilitating ailments on account of the health care system the money that might indicate that at least something was being had for the money, but this is not the case.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm sure it's cheaper for everyone to use one service, but are you confident people are satisfied with such a system? Here in Canada people don't have access to diagnostic equipment and put up with massive wait times. Many Canadians travel to the US as the Canadian system cannot provide for them. There is a price, whether it's up-front or in the neglect of citizens; one cannot use that as an argument.

Just because it is cheaper for everyone to take the bus doesn't mean everyone should be forced to take the bus. There are many modes of transportation out there and if you confine people to the bus, they will do nothing more than take the bus for all eternity. The opportunities lost are individuality, innovation and competitive forces. The US healthcare system is so broad and versatile, to compare it to generic coverage offered by the public system is unreasonable. That's not to say there isn't a place for a compassionate social safety net like welfare; it just cannot begin to represent private offerings.

Issues of queueing and a one-size-fits-all policy will drive richer people to private care. These are flaws in existing nationalized health systems. I am not arguing for them. A proper system will not have queueing but a price mechanism.

Now the US has some good treatment. But at a huge expense. Looking at a 2002 chart, 12% of GDP as compared with 6% in the UK (public and private). And the GDP per capita is higher of course. What the main cause is of these costs I do not know exactly - insurance issues or litigation issues or over-training of doctors (are there different levels of qualifications?). The fact that 12% of the massive US GDP is spent on health care suggests something is wrong. If Americans lived much longer than Britons or had far fewer debilitating ailments on account of the health care system the money that might indicate that at least something was being had for the money, but this is not the case.

As I indicated in the post you quoted I asked if these nations even come close to the quality of care offered in the US. Are aesthetic/cosmetic operations covered by some insurance plans included? Are wait times calculated and how about user satisfaction? Heathcare cannot just be compared on a GDP basis...

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: Witling
Jaskalas, I've got to admire a guy who can raise the Patriot Act in a thread about what's wrong with liberals.

Stunt, let me give you one example of why unbridled capatilism is not a good idea. In straight-eight capitalism, environmental effects don't come in to the equation. If I can increase my profits by flushing my waste down the river, hit it colt! One practical example of this is that California outlawed hydraulic mining during the gold rush because streams were literally being ruined. Chrysler and Harley Davidson would be out of business in straight capitalism.

You are referring to capitalism without protection of property rights.

 

[Rainsford]

The problem with the conservative view of things is that it makes an even larger leap of faith, and that is that there is economic incentive to provide decent services in the various areas some people feel are important. The idea that the private sector will do everything better and cheaper than the government makes the assumption that there is an incentive for them to do so, that the service is designed in such a way that good service would make economic sense. The private sector isn't magic, without that driving force, things would be much worse than any government program.

The most obvious example is Social Security. Not the retirement part of it, but the part that helps the disadvantaged or those otherwise incapable of caring for themselves. It's easy to say that charity will take care of that problem, and it's true than charity plays an important part, but I see no reason to expect the volume necessary to help all those who need it. The problem is that charity exists outside of market forces, it makes no sense to spend money on that sort of thing, the supply is driven by charitable feelings, which is not tied to the demand. Perhaps there are enough people willing to donate to charity, but perhaps not. In either case, the general driving ideas behind why the private sector would be better than government simply don't apply here.

But how about another example, one that appears to offer economic incentives...national defense. The military and intelligence sectors of the government spend an enormous amount of money, far more than any other single sector of government. Wouldn't it make sense to make the CIA, DOD, etc, private entities that the government contracts to in order to obtain service? Well actually, the government HAS been doing this...the military and intelligence business is filled with contractors, but control of the various groups is still in government hands. Does it make sense to totally turn operations over to a private company? I'd say no, because again, I'm not convinced that economics is enough of a driving factor to produce the best results. Many of the things necessary to functional military and intelligence are not really cost effective, expensive research programs that the public never sees, that sort of thing. If they had to compete in the free market, we'd end up with crummy service because we as consumers would not recognize it as such.

Now that doesn't mean I'm totally right about those areas, and it certainly doesn't mean that the government is the best place to find ANY service, much of what the government does now could probably be improved by the private sector. But to answer Stunt's question about the "liberal" outlook on government programs, I firmly believe that there are certain things that the government probably can do a better job at than a private company. People enjoy bitching about the government, but I wonder how much more they would really like the private sector trying to do the job. Conservatives seem to believe that the free market is the answer to all problems, but I see little evidence to suggest that is true. I could be wrong about this, but it's going to take some actual reasoned argument to convince me. I've studied economics enough to know that the free market isn't the Holy Grail, it is great in many (if not most) situations, but a world where private companies on the free market have totally replaced most of the government's function might not be the paradise conservatives seem to think it will be.

And just in case anybody is looking for a point of reference, I'm actually an economic conservative, at least according to the Political Compass. Well, technically I'm a slightly conservative moderate, but my point is that the options aren't anarcho-capitalist and flamingly liberal communist...there is plenty of room inbetween.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: Witling
Jaskalas, I've got to admire a guy who can raise the Patriot Act in a thread about what's wrong with liberals.

Stunt, let me give you one example of why unbridled capatilism is not a good idea. In straight-eight capitalism, environmental effects don't come in to the equation. If I can increase my profits by flushing my waste down the river, hit it colt! One practical example of this is that California outlawed hydraulic mining during the gold rush because streams were literally being ruined. Chrysler and Harley Davidson would be out of business in straight capitalism.

You are referring to capitalism without protection of property rights.

I think that's the point, unlimited capitalism is apparently the only kind that isn't "liberal" (at least in some minds). Yet I think even conservatives would agree with a lot of it.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Stunt
This is one of those crucial questions I ask myself relentlessly as I discover myself politically (a never ending process in my opinion).

I find it noble that liberals want what's best for all people through institutions run by people themselves. As you may notice from my posts here there are many issues where I disagree with the liberal mindset. This is merely because I feel liberals tend (some more than others) to turn away from the practical application of what they preach. Now don't take this the wrong way, conservatives can be no better; inflating numbers, being over-optimistic and turning away from facts they don't want to hear.

My question to Liberals is: Many of you preach a stronger role of government, more control of currently private jurisdictions, and more collective/inclusive social programs. Why is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed? Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

If you disagree with this comment, tell me what social program in your eyes works well. In my experience, I find the private sector has been far more concerned with my business and issues than any government institution. Maybe this is because businesses are customer focused and must achieve quality/service excellence or else they will go under and get replaced by the next guy. Can the state really offer the flexibility and needs of a diverse nation's people or is it really as easy as saying everyone gets the same.

Private industries certainly have the resources and motivation to research what people really want and can evolve to suit, government can not. For me, social programs are like a Model T Ford...domestic, works, black and that's it. Why disappoint everybody when competition, flexibility and motivation can give you many brands, options and character?

One man's view...cheers.

When you realize that your entire definition of "liberal" is based upon something more akin to "socialist", then we can begin to define what liberals truely are and think. As long as you equate these two very different viewpoints as the same thing, then you will not realize what "liberalism" is all about.

Let me put it simply:

Socailism is an economic viewpoint that champions government control of much of the economy, either through direction, legistlation, or ownership. Socialist governments look to use legislation to drive much of the economy by plan, or at least maintain some "balance".

Liberalism is a social and political doctrine (not economic!) that seeks to advance the populace away from the hidebound ways of the past, and into a more enlightened mindset. Historical Liberal views in this context have included the end of slavery, women's sufferage, fair employment and labour practices such as the end of sweatshops, equal rights for minorities, et al. Sometimes (but not always) liberalism relies upon the passage of laws and government intervention - sometimes it relies upon educating the population.

But Liberalism often does require legal changes to put such practices into effect, and it seems that this is where your confusion lies. Just because both viewpoints sometimes require legislation (as does conservativism, of course!) does not mean that they are one and the same. And while there is a lot of overlap in people that believe in both, that STILL does not make them the same thing...

Future Shock

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp
Business model doesn't work with social services.
Just simple economics. In business, the products or services are directed to those with most resources, while social services need to be directed towards those with least resources.

Odd, how come the biggest most successful companies in the world have excelled by offering services to people with the least resouces?

Walmart, Toyota, Google and many others have geared themselves towards low-cost, quality, and practical products. Do you think the US government could ever be so innovative?

Really??? Got to the worst neighborhoods in the Bronx, go to South Central in LA, hell to to the outskirts of Mexico City, or Rio de Janario's barrios...tell me where you see a Wal-Mart, or a Toyota dealership, or even enough computers to access Google in any meaningful way...THESE are the people with the least resources...frankly, you sound like a poorly travelled computer nerd sitting behind a keyboard who has never travelled beyond his white-bread suburb...you don't know what poor IS...

Future Shock

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: StuntWhy is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed?

Because what you are saying isn't true. Even you don't believe that ALL public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed. I guarantee you that if your house was on fire, you would call the public fire department without thinking twice.

Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

Because fixing a lot of these social programs/institutions requires more funding, or what you would call "expansion of state." Notice I didn't say "ALL" like you did. I don't want to generalize. I think we need to improve programs that can be improved, cut fat where needed, and increase funding where necessary.

1) I would call the fire department because they have a monopoly on their business. Of course when you take away options from a person, they will follow your path, but who are you to say the path is the path we should all take. I don't want your black model T Ford, why force one on me?

Noone is forcing you to use the fire department. Hire some contractors with fire extinguishers to put out the fire for you.
Most people are satisfied with their fire departments, and you have yet to show me how they are inefficient.

2) Everything requires more funding, that's the excuse everybody uses for a service which is not sustainable. Your statements are empty ideals mirroring the effects of capitalism and a competitive marketplace. "Cut fat", "Improve", these should be expected from any organization. Government cannot create this culture as there is no fear of bankrupcy, job-loss, or loss of business. It is a massive inefficient corporation with a monopoly on businesses in the name of good while castrating our livelihood, personality and rights.

You are a rightwing ideologue. There is a reason governments exist and have always existed, and have almost always offered public services, across the world. That's what people want. If it doesn't fit your ideology, tough.

 

[Stunt]

FS and Rainsford,
I am well aware of socialism and its broad range, it's not a black and white debate. Liberalism is a very inclusive term, including libertarians, republicans, conservatives, liberals and democrats. It just seems like state is in everything these days; resources, insurance, electricity, medicare, intelligence, security, infrastructure, alcohol (see beer store monopoly in ontario), education, retirement, unemployment, etc are all monopolized by government. Where are we drawing the line, you cannot say today's government is small enough and is 'just' underfunded.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp
Business model doesn't work with social services.
Just simple economics. In business, the products or services are directed to those with most resources, while social services need to be directed towards those with least resources.

Odd, how come the biggest most successful companies in the world have excelled by offering services to people with the least resouces?

Walmart, Toyota, Google and many others have geared themselves towards low-cost, quality, and practical products. Do you think the US government could ever be so innovative?

Do you know any poor people, or have you ever been poor yourself? The people getting social services aren't buying new Toyotas, and if they buy stuff at Walmart, they do it with their checks from the government. Or if they go to a private doctor, the government still pays for it. So it's not the government always providing these services, often times they are already provided indirectly through private businesses with government funding.