Opting out

[Greatguardian]

The current situation is not optimal. Not opting for a downgrade doesn't mean we think what we have is the best there ever was.

But, you know, privatized human services are still probably going to be a downgrade.

[Indeed]

I don't think it is even remotely worth the risk to people's safety and well-being when private enterprise has the kind of track record that it has right now.

Any company that came in to fill the gap would not be starting from the ground up. It would be a subsidiary of an existing large corporation, which would make it inherently evil to some degree or another. Tbh some of the only people I'd actually trust to not fuck something like that up is Google and that's only because they make boatloads of money despite paying $1/yr salaries to their top execs. Google got lucky. They are the exception.

Google Fire would be pretty fucking awesome, though.

Edit: This could also just be because Google control's the world's information and is really so evil that they brainwashed everyone into thinking they're the good guys. Who knows.

I challenge the idea that business in inherently evil and government is inherently good. I do not think either one of them is inherently benevolent, nor do I think that the government is somehow disconnected from the ability to generate profit for someone, somewhere. I do not believe the federal government always works in the best interest of the people.

Besides, I'm pretty sure almost 100% of what you named as vital human services are not handled by the federal government. Things like water, gas/electricity, police, firefighters, schools are all, I'm pretty sure, the responsibility of individual state governments. There are federal law enforcement agencies though, obviously, but that's not necessarily who you're dealing with when they come investigate a break-in at your home. The federal government mostly just provides a kind of standard that everyone has to meet. I think it's pretty well documented that different states budget better/worse than others, and have all achieved different levels of success and efficiency with their services. The public servants that are elected to manage shit like state funding are not necessarily always elected because they are the best qualified to handle budgets, you know what I mean?

[aurik]

The problem with privatization of public responsibilities is that private companies value profit over effective service. Which means if they can cut corners or legally weasel out of providing services that they were ostensibly contracted to provide, they will.

The problem with leaving public responsibilities to government agencies is that they have no incentive to provide said service at competitive costs, nor any drive to innovate better ways to provide said services.

Neither method is particularly attractive, but what alternative do you have that a) rewards cost-effectiveness and innovation but b) doesn't reward corner-cutting and trading quality for profit?

[Greatguardian]

I challenge the idea that business in inherently evil and government is inherently good. I do not think either one of them is inherently benevolent, nor do I think that the government is somehow disconnected from the ability to generate profit for someone, somewhere. I do not believe the federal government always works in the best interest of the people.

Business is not inherently evil. Business is inherently profit-seeking.

When the current market environment makes it extremely profitable to be evil, businesses will be evil.

It's a two-step process.

Edit: To clarify, the reason this is important is because, as I mentioned earlier, we're not going to see new startups to fill these gaps. We are going to see subsidiaries of existing companies. Existing companies large enough to sponsor these ventures are the ones who have thrived in the current market environment. The current market environment promotes evil. The companies large enough to fill those human services gaps are inherently evil because they are the ones thriving in an evil-friendly environment.

[Indeed]

Business is not inherently evil. Business is inherently profit-seeking.

When the current market environment makes it extremely profitable to be evil, businesses will be evil.

It's a two-step process.

Edit: To clarify, the reason this is important is because, as I mentioned earlier, we're not going to see new startups to fill these gaps. We are going to see subsidiaries of existing companies. Existing companies large enough to sponsor these ventures are the ones who have thrived in the current market environment. The current market environment promotes evil. The companies large enough to fill those human services gaps are inherently evil because they are the ones thriving in an evil-friendly environment.

I don't disagree, I simply believe that an "evil", or as I prefer, exploitation-friendly environment is kind of something that we bear a lot of responsibility for allowing. At times, there are not alternatives to providers for services like internet or phone, and you're kind of pressed to buy from one company or another for whatever reason. At other times, you really do have the option not to buy from some place that is well known for having despicable business practices, like Walmart. Supporting local/small business is our own responsibility, and we can't really be mad at evil corporations for thriving when we are the people making them thrive. That's silly. Walmart isn't some evil overlord that exists independent of all of us. A lot of people choose to shop there because it's cheap, and they either don't know or don't care about how they treat their employees. Their eyes are on the low price in the very same way that the eyes of Walmart's higher ups are on their bottom line. It's the same evil, but ours is perceived as less for some reason.

[Greatguardian]

Many businesses simply exploit the system. Some are truly evil. The latter tend to be the largest and most successful.

I'd get shitfucked back into the alligator fuckhouse by big oil lawyers if I talked too much shit about what goes on with them, but they really are pure, unadulterated evil. And you know, I really don't blame people too much for not knowing about it. It's hard to find out what really goes on behind the scenes. Companies put a lot of money into PR, and they don't like people talking crap about them.

Yes, many people are guilty of ignorance. But there is a massive difference in power between the average citizen and a large corporation. The bar must be set higher for one of them.

[hey]

The difference between you and me, I suppose, is that I don't necessarily believe that our current government is the most perfect possible option. I'm not sure that I believe without a doubt that they deliver us the highest possible quality of service, or in some cases even a favorable ratio of service to cost.

What? Our government sucks. It's a terrible option, but unfortnately, it's also the best.

[Ksandra]

I don't disagree, I simply believe that an "evil", or as I prefer, exploitation-friendly environment is kind of something that we bear a lot of responsibility for allowing. At times, there are not alternatives to providers for services like internet or phone, and you're kind of pressed to buy from one company or another for whatever reason. At other times, you really do have the option not to buy from some place that is well known for having despicable business practices, like Walmart. Supporting local/small business is our own responsibility, and we can't really be mad at evil corporations for thriving when we are the people making them thrive. That's silly. Walmart isn't some evil overlord that exists independent of all of us. A lot of people choose to shop there because it's cheap, and they either don't know or don't care about how they treat their employees. Their eyes are on the low price in the very same way that the eyes of Walmart's higher ups are on their bottom line. It's the same evil, but ours is perceived as less for some reason.

I agree with you on the part that people do need to become more responsible in where they shop and that in most ways we allowed this to happen. However, this just further proves (to me at least) that this is something we would need to fix FIRST before even remotely thinking of giving businesses more freedom and a chance. And I don't think that's something we could fix easily at all especially if we wanted to get people to do it for all types of businesses they use.

Look at the whole madness with the banks. At this point there's is really only one reason to stick with a bank instead of a credit union. And that's if you are non-military and travel a lot. That reason is so minimal now, and is becoming phased out rather quickly (with checks becoming non-existent, and for those that use them- cell phone technology that allows people to scan their own checks). Banks are big businesses, credit unions are not-for-profit. Yet despite all of this, millions of people are still using regular banks. You would think that enough info would have floated around for them to know how CUs benefit them, but they don't switch.

Really, I find the concept of doing something like this (allowing businesses to run public programs) now would be shit retarded, and you'd find the already huge income gap getting even bigger. If you could fix people's mentalities and business models first, then it's a idea that could be thought about (still no guarantees though).


Semi related, I would honestly love love love to see how the CU model could work in other business areas as in many ways it's a win-win in the sense it improves products/prices but keeps a business running (though CEOs would never allow it), but as GG said unless businesses find it worth it, they won't do it. I would think that this model would be the way to start working on fixing things if you could get people to shop at CU-modeled stores, though that's just a huge assumption on my part.

[Indeed]

Well, what I don't understand is how this hurts some of the things named specifically. I'm still charged a fee for the electricity and water I consume, for example. This company isn't just buying it and giving it to me for free out of the goodness of their hearts. Me paying taxes every year doesn't just get me some amount of electricity and water and gas. I'm buying a service from someone. If they're operating on a nonprofit basis, then they may not have some R&D department working on ways to produce more energy cheaply, or in a different way, or through a more efficient infrastructure. I suppose I need to look it up more to find out exactly where that money goes, and how it varies from company to company. I think you should read this as an example, though:

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/edit....aspx?id=33060

MLGW is one of the largest municipal providers in the country. It still has people being federally indicted, allegations of favoritism within the company, bad investments that cost millions (millions that come from us in some form), sale of failing divisions, and essentially everything you'd expect to see in any sort of business. Bad management and expensive failure is not impossible just because they operate at what I assume is a nonprofit status, since they are a municipal utility provider. I'll have to do a little more digging, but there were also some local news reports regarding "arbitrary and excessive" billing by the company. These people are not as awesome as they are being made out simply because they're connected to the state government in a variety of ways.

[Greatguardian]

Aurik gave a nice summation of the problem.

No one's saying that government-run services are super awesome. They're just less dangerous than the alternative.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

damnit swamp, use your brain.

The purpose is to get people to realize their money is leaving their hands that they earned. This goal relies on the fact that people do not take any notice that they are paying income tax.

You want people to actually pay this tax, requiring they do some activity to write checks or mail it or whatever the process would be. This is monumentally more work than what those that pay income tax already have to do, which is nothing. This means far more people will not pay income taxes, or do it incorrectly, thus making it a bureaucratic nightmare.

Oops I forgot. Oops I sent it to the wrong place. Oops I paid the wrong amount. Oops my check bounced. Oops do you take CC?

First, in order to be criminally prosecuted, you really have to fuck up. I can't tell if there's an implication in your post regarding that.

Second, there's already solutions to the problems you list. Federal tax services MUST be provided for FREE. How someone could "forget", I don't know, but there's already extensions.

Also, if you worried about enforcement, simply increase the statute of limitations.

[hey]

Also, if you worried about enforcement, simply increase the statute of limitations.

Good idea. There will be so many people not paying their taxes, that they'll never be able to get around to all of them before then. It'll definitely need to be increased.

[Demosthenes11]

How to decrease bureaucracy: make it to where more people are breaking the law at the same time.
what in the fuck?

Swamp what the fuck

[ringthree]

I'm shocked that people think the government honestly provides them with the highest possible level of quality in everything it does, I suppose.

I am even more surprised that people think the private sector does...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

How to decrease bureaucracy: make it to where more people are breaking the law at the same time.
what in the fuck?

Swamp what the fuck

How would more people be breaking the law? You increase the the SOL in order to create voluntary compliance.

[Demosthenes11]

Brain of a Republican Swamp:

[hey]

How would more people be breaking the law? You increase the the SOL in order to create voluntary compliance.

Because more people will be able to break the law.

It's pretty hard to not pay taxes when they're taken right out of your paycheck.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Because more people will be able to break the law.

It's pretty hard to not pay taxes when they're taken right out of your paycheck.

Hence the reason for increasing the statute of limitations. And it's already easy to not have them taken out of your paycheck.

Also, there didn't seem to be issues with compliance before WWII when withholdings began.