> it’s about providing the best standard of life to as many individuals as possible
Which is also a nice thing to have but definitely not the main objective for people on "my" political side. Main argument for privatising stuff is not being optimal or not: it's the principle of making the government, which is the only entity with monopoly on violence, as weak and as small as possible.
Think about it as a microkernel (I must admit that I don't know enough about kernel development, so this analogy is very crude). Even if moving different services from the kernel to user-space would hurt perfomance, it's still a good security practice: this lost efficiency is worth, even if the advantages are "abstract" and not clear from the get-go.
In the end it’s all down to people.
Elected people in government or not so elected entrepreneurs.
Pick you poison. :)
Violence is a consequence of many factors, and in a decent democracy having it monopolized with the governement we have elected is probably a good thing.
The great thing is that we have history as a reference and I think we should use it.
I’m not aiming for the extremes here, but rather life and living standard in the world and perhaps west specifically, post WW2.
The numbers are there, we can see the trajectories.
The numbers seem to say, pretty clearly — having a great standard of life seems to gain everyone (except for perhaps the ultra wealthy).
Think about this, and give me you view:
Why is the worlds most happy nations also the ones taxed the highest, and as such have the biggest government influences?
> Elected people in government or not so elected entrepreneurs.
I'll pick different entities competing with one another over a monolith.
> Violence is a consequence of many factors, and in a decent democracy having it monopolized with the governement we have elected is probably a good thing.
Never said it wasn't. But the entity that monopolizes it should be as small as possible.
> Why is the worlds most happy nations also the ones taxed the highest, and as such have the biggest government influences?
Same reason you would probably find the biggest tumors in people with the healthiest lifestyles: they would kill others at much earlier stages.
I find the ”competition” argument quite interesting.
From what I have experienced so far through life it looks like this supposedly healthy competition leads to variants of VW & co behaviour down the line.
I see very few exceptions from my northern europe socialist bubble.
When it comes to:
- School
- Health
- Police
- fire & rescue services
- etc, whatever you would consider part of welfare
I want the best, not a choice.
”Sir, you’re having a heart attack. Would you like the best treatment, or can we offer you this more competetive offering at a discount?”.
It’s just, to me, a really odd way of viewing a society.
I don't know enough about american prison system to have an informed opinion. My argument was about the principle and objectives I (or, generally speaking, a fiscal conservative) base my opinions on, not prisons in particular.
Which is also a nice thing to have but definitely not the main objective for people on "my" political side. Main argument for privatising stuff is not being optimal or not: it's the principle of making the government, which is the only entity with monopoly on violence, as weak and as small as possible.
Think about it as a microkernel (I must admit that I don't know enough about kernel development, so this analogy is very crude). Even if moving different services from the kernel to user-space would hurt perfomance, it's still a good security practice: this lost efficiency is worth, even if the advantages are "abstract" and not clear from the get-go.