Fears for Detroit's treasures as bankruptcy looms

Nothing like Somalia - they haven't got past the first step yet.

I think it was Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkeness" where he said the best thing the early European explorers could have done for Africa was to toss the Africans a wheel as they passed Cape Horn and left them to their own devices.

 

No, we'd just argue amongst ourselves.

 

Because all of the State's "services" are provided through coercion. The failure to understand that it is possible and infinitely more effective to provide policing and even armed forces via private companies is a failure to understand the free market and the tenets upon which it is based.

 

Every criticism of private emergency service providers has been adequately answered before by someone else during the past decades. The opponents of privatising the emergency services think they come up with rational arguments against such a move, but every one of their so-called rational arguments has been countered - it's just that they are too ignorant or unaware.

For example, private police forces will benefit the rich because they have the greatest capacity to pay:

snip

http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

The same concept could be applied to roads as well. Under a free market system, a road network system is privately owned and is charged on a user pays basis. Part of this charge may incorporate the presence of some form of police force to ensure the safe passage of all users.

 

I've just downloaded Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways". Will alternate between that and one of Bernard Cornwell's Warlord novels.

 

That's comforting, would be like a post from the walking dead otherwise. :lol:

 

False alarms are viewed as an unnecessary waste of taxpayer funds, and most fire and police authorities around the world charge a huge fee if personnel are dispatched and it is found that a false alarm has triggered the event.

Hardly a waste of police resources though as this is precisely the purpose of policing, respond to alarms or events, regardless of whether they are false or not.

http://freakonomics.com/2012/04/05/the-hidden-cost-of-false-alarms-a-new-marketplace-podcast/

Interesting but failed attempt to use market forces as an argument in favour of false alarm charges because I would only call an appliance technician when I need it - ie I pay when I require the service. With policing and fire and ambos, I have no choice, I have already paid for a service that I either use or don't use.

As a side issue, it's easy to stay in business dear Police Chief Steckler even if 95% of the product you supply is bad - when you're a government dept.

Of course, you could also do what the CFA does and double dip through bribery, extortion and even nepotism. If you support the CFA or supply personnel to the CFA they'll reduce false alarm fees, if you own a business and are an active CFA volunteer they will waive the false alarm fees.

http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/charges/

Isn't the provision of government funded emergency services wonderful? If you belong to a sub-group of the community that funds the vast majority of your organisation's operating budget, you get immunity. Bad luck to the majority of Victorians who are not business owners and CFA members, you're getting ripped off and you have no choice in the matter.

 

Block makes the point that most opponents of privatising public services and infrastructure are in fact myopic, they are incapable of envisioning anything but the public ownership roads, street lighting, water services, police forces etc.

When presented with alternatives to government owned markets, the majority of anti-free marketeers dismiss the concept simply because they can't get their head around the possibility of private social infrastructure. Free marketeers simply believe that government provided services are wasteful of scant resources and that the privatisation of public infrastructure would ensure greater accountability at a cheaper cost and with greater consumer satisfaction.

Usually these myopic arguments follow the lines of similar debates we have seen on this forum eg profit is the only motive for being in business, private companies should not own social infrastructure because they only care about profits. That is partly true, private businesses exist to make a profit. That is the main reason they exist and impacts the most on all decisions made. It is also the same reason most people wake and go to work each day - in order to make money. There is nothing fundamentally evil about profit. And the only way a company can make a profit is to provide a valued service to a customer and to get repeat business.

This is where accountability comes into play. A company will lose customers and go bankrupt if it supplies a product that is below standard or not in demand. Government owned infrastructure does not face that market force, nor does it face the wrath of angry consumers because it usually has a monopoly and non of the public managers are personally held financially liable for erroneous decisions.

 

An inherent problem with all government departments, and one that they find near to impossible to solve (except by throwing more money at the workers) - morale. Morale is referred to as the level of motivation or enthusiasm in a group of people, in the armed forces it is accepted that "good morale does not necessarily win a battle. Poor morale doesn't necessarily lose a battle, as Hannibal's mercenaries showed. Generals believe, however, that other things being relatively equal, higher morale carries the day and devote at least some time to maintaining and building morale."

http://www.fruithome.com/academic/oklahoma/com_cris.html

snip

snip

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-cuts-take-toll/story-e6frg8yo-1226799405723#

 

Yes and because it is government run it will be difficult to improve morale because resources are misallocated and mismanaged.

Welcome back to the thread.