Go Ron ...

[CanadianCoyote]

"Privatized" doesn't NECESSARILY mean "for the rich". Each year the federal government rapes the budget and money is taken from the national park system and funneled into other cash-strapped programs. Privatizing certain places might actually save them AND their beauty from a government purge.

 

[ViRedd]

"Privatized" doesn't NECESSARILY mean "for the rich". Each year the federal government rapes the budget and money is taken from the national park system and funneled into other cash-strapped programs. Privatizing certain places might actually save them AND their beauty from a government purge.

Well said, CC.

If the National Parks were privatized, they would be managed much better than the federal government ever thought of managing them.

Damn ... we've seen the federal government rape, pillage, murder and just generally screw things up, and yet, we cannot expand our minds to envision privately run national parks. Why is that? Is it the result of generations of mind manipulation foisted upon us by our government monopolized schools systems partnered with a corrupt media?

Vi

 

[We TaRdED]

Why is that? Is it the result of generations of mind manipulation foisted upon us by our government monopolized schools systems partnered with a corrupt media?

Vi

Yep... Good'old tax dollars hard at work, aye?

 

[ceestyle]

Well said, CC.

If the National Parks were privatized, they would be managed much better than the federal government ever thought of managing them.

Damn ... we've seen the federal government rape, pillage, murder and just generally screw things up, and yet, we cannot expand our minds to envision privately run national parks. Why is that? Is it the result of generations of mind manipulation foisted upon us by our government monopolized schools systems partnered with a corrupt media?

Vi

Because a private company will run a park in the interest of making money, not to protect wilderness and the animals that live in it. Isn't that obvious?

Your second statement is based on your first, which has no stated basis in fact. It is apparently conjecture.

 

[ViRedd]

Because a private company will run a park in the interest of making money, not to protect wilderness and the animals that live in it. Isn't that obvious?

Your second statement is based on your first, which has no stated basis in fact. It is apparently conjecture.

The fact that a private company would run the parks for a profit doesn't mean they wouldn't protect the wilderness at all. In fact, that profit only comes in direct proportion to the numbers of people they can attract to the park. Therefore, they would be much better stewards of the park than the federal government is. After all ... a pristine park is inviting, that's why you don't see trash strewn around at Disneyland. Conversely, the federal government doesn't care one whit about earning a profit, OR maintaining a pristine environment. Take a look at Yellowstone for an example.

And, my second statement is based upon fact. Have you checked out the current drop out rate in our government schools? How about average test scores? Have you observed the composition styles of most who post here in these forums on RIU? Have you ever seen Jay Leno's "man in the street" interviews? ~lol~ If not, I can tell you that they are pathetic.

Vi

 

[ceestyle]

The fact that a private company would run the parks for a profit doesn't mean they wouldn't protect the wilderness at all. In fact, that profit only comes in direct proportion to the numbers of people they can attract to the park. Therefore, they would be much better stewards of the park than the federal government is. After all ... a pristine park is inviting, that's why you don't see trash strewn around at Disneyland. Conversely, the federal government doesn't care one whit about earning a profit, OR maintaining a pristine environment. Take a look at Yellowstone for an example.

Ah, here we have it: the measure of a corporation's success in the business of park maintenance is in the number of people that visit the park. That is not exactly correct, as they will be taking a gross amount of funds from the government to perform this service. A cursory search reveals that the vast majority of funds used to support Yosemite, for example, come directly from tax dollars.

But let's take the case that somehow the park becomes subsistent on usage fees alone. The primary motivator is in the profit-bearing visitation of the park. Although you've drawn a straight line through having a pristine park and more visitors, it is obviously more complicated. For example, it is not just keeping the park clean or doing those things that motivate visitors to come to the park that are involved in maintaining a natural habitat. There are countless habitat reconstruction, wildlife studies, etc. that do not impact the 'consumer' in any way. Anything not directly affecting bottom line would be cut. If a program instructing young people how to treat animals and nature in general, or teaching about wildlife, etc., was not contributing to the bottom line, it would be cut. You see here how things that benefit visitors to the park are not always going to be money-makers ... but should NOT be cut. I mean, kicking mothers out of the hospital the same day they deliver is sure economical, but should that be the norm?

Furthermore, what should be obvious is that the company running the park(s) would do everything in their power to raise prices, create other revenue sources, etc. to the maximum extent allowed by whatever supervising body oversees it. In other words, the park would be commercialized to whatever degree your local lawmakers would allow. McDonalds Tuolomne Falls, anyone? Please ... and god forbid the relevant lawmaker have the corporate lobbyist at his office every month with a campaign donation ... there'll be rollercoasters and hot dog vendors all the way up half-dome.

And, my second statement is based upon fact. Have you checked out the current drop out rate in our government schools? How about average test scores? Have you observed the composition styles of most who post here in these forums on RIU? Have you ever seen Jay Leno's "man in the street" interviews? ~lol~ If not, I can tell you that they are pathetic.
Vi

For the record, the following is what I cited as apparent conjecture:

If the National Parks were privatized, they would be managed much better than the federal government ever thought of managing them.

If there is some study that I am unaware of that shows this is the case, please let me know. Otherwise, it is simply your unsubstantiated opinion.

Ok, so let me get this straight: You are trying to relate the privatization of parks to how the government currently runs parks, to how the government runs schools, to drop-out rates and test scores in those schools. That is WAY too many degrees of separation, even if I thought that the indices you cited reflect how the government runs the school system, rather than other fundamental problems. The composition styles and the Leno show are anecdotal evidence and essentially worthless.

The schools I will leave for a separate thread and another day. What I will say is this: just because the system is not working does not mean it's time to dismantle it. First, you might try fixing it.

If any school of thought has become pervasive without merit, it is that of the miracle of the free market economy and the magical effect privatization has on both efficiency and serviced rendered. It is constantly being stated without proof or example that this is the case. It makes me want to vomit.

 

[homerdog]

What about a not for profit? Privatized and are there to serve their community? Many if not most of the wildlife studies you speak of are actually university based and funded by both private and public grants. The Disney example, I believe was meant to highlight efficiency, not the profit portion you pointed out. Hell, kinda off topic, but what if we made everyone who visited a national park participate in a preservation activity for a half day or pay admission (with exceptions for disabled if those so choose)? I know which one I would pick and it would give the public more respect for the parks, as they have a vested interest, just a thought.

 

[homerdog]

Cee, speaking of studies and proof. What portions of the constitution can you quote for us that exhibit the mandate for Government to provide for our every need, education, and endless funding of BS. I would especially like to know why you are so gungho about Gov controlled social programs in light of the exponential grow and horrible returns we have seen over the last 10 years ?

 

[ceestyle]

What about a not for profit? Privatized and are there to serve their community? Many if not most of the wildlife studies you speak of are actually university based and funded by both private and public grants. The Disney example, I believe was meant to highlight efficiency, not the profit portion you pointed out. Hell, kinda off topic, but what if we made everyone who visited a national park participate in a preservation activity for a half day or pay admission (with exceptions for disabled if those so choose)? I know which one I would pick and it would give the public more respect for the parks, as they have a vested interest, just a thought.

Yeah, the studies are externally funded, so not a perfect example, but I'm sure there are internal resources dedicated to determining what is best for the overall well-being of the wildlife.

A non-profit is not a bad idea. Those who advocate privatization would say that removes the incentive for efficiency, but if you can fire them or accept alternate bids, that is not the case.

 

[ceestyle]

Cee, speaking of studies and proof. What portions of the constitution can you quote for us that exhibit the mandate for Government to provide for our every need, education, and endless funding of BS. I would especially like to know why you are so gungho about Gov controlled social programs in light of the exponential grow and horrible returns we have seen over the last 10 years ?

I wouldn't say that you've really captured what my perspective is, but I will say this:

Partial privatization does not work for those that require services that used to be in the public sector, e.g. prisons, health care, etc. That is a fact.

Public sector programs can work. They do work in other countries. Clinton/Obama health-care plans are examples of half-assed attempts. They will crash and burn, after the corporations loot the moneys.

This is the regurgitation of the mentality that if the system is broken, you throw it out. I'm sick of the attempts to reverse the New Deal of the past decades .. anything to make government programs look bad for a chance to axe them.

It is a purely politically motivated argument in the case of health care. A single-payer system would unarguably be cheaper than any of the garbage Clinton/Obama is proposing. We were soooo close in the wake of the new deal to having one ...

Although I like to avoid talking about our country in terms of what the constitution said, as it's more relevant to talk about what is good for our country in the context of /today/, the constitution was written in the pursuit of the general welfare of its citizens. The constitution itself was a document provided to give our government the tools to fulfill this end, and to protect the citizens through checks and balances to ensure that this was its ultimate end.

If affordable, quality healthcare is not available to all of our citizens, I think it is the duty of the government to either provide it, or ensure that it is provided. The same goes for a quality education, which one could also argue is in the best interest of the future of business and industry in our nation, thus ensuring its future. These arguments are not hard to make.

 

[ceestyle]

Cee, speaking of studies and proof. What portions of the constitution can you quote for us that exhibit the mandate for Government to provide for our every need, education, and endless funding of BS. I would especially like to know why you are so gungho about Gov controlled social programs in light of the exponential grow and horrible returns we have seen over the last 10 years ?

I wouldn't say that you've really captured what my perspective is, but I will say this:

Partial privatization does not work for those that require services that used to be in the public sector, e.g. prisons, health care, etc. That is a fact.

Public sector programs can work. They do work in other countries. Clinton/Obama health-care plans are examples of half-assed attempts. They will crash and burn, after the corporations loot the moneys.

This is the regurgitation of the mentality that if the system is broken, you throw it out. I'm sick of the attempts to reverse the New Deal of the past decades .. anything to make government programs look bad for a chance to axe them.

It is a purely politically motivated argument in the case of health care. A single-payer system would unarguably be cheaper than any of the garbage Clinton/Obama is proposing. We were soooo close in the wake of the new deal to having one ...

Although I like to avoid talking about our country in terms of what the constitution said, as it's more relevant to talk about what is good for our country in the context of /today/, the constitution was written in the pursuit of the general welfare of its citizens. The constitution itself was a document provided to give our government the tools to fulfill this end, and to protect the citizens through checks and balances to ensure that this was its ultimate end.

If affordable, quality healthcare is not available to all of our citizens, I think it is the duty of the government to either provide it, or ensure that it is provided. The same goes for a quality education, which one could also argue is in the best interest of the future of business and industry in our nation, thus ensuring its future. These arguments are not hard to make.

 

[ViRedd]

U.C. Berkeley Economics 101.

U.C. Berkeley Constitutional Studies 101.

Vi

 

[medicineman]

Ceestyle, I think you have the basics down, whatever school you've been to.
Government was created to be the tool of the people. If the people needed healthcare, then the government should have set up a program from the gates, thereby eliminating profit. Profit is so entrenched today, it would take a revolution to unseat it. Profit VS health "Care", that is the question. When the constitution was formed, healthcare was a country doctor and a horse drawn carriage. You paid with chickens corn or whatever other assets you have. Now it is being denied to millions and costs an arm and a leg.

 

[homerdog]

"Although I like to avoid talking about our country in terms of what the constitution said, as it's more relevant to talk about what is good for our country in the context of /today/, the constitution was written in the pursuit of the general welfare of its citizens. The constitution itself was a document provided to give our government the tools to fulfill this end, and to protect the citizens through checks and balances to ensure that this was its ultimate end."

Now there is some dangerous thinking. What about the day when it is your best interest to have microchip identification to prevent identity fraud and terrorism? If you don't bind the government to its constitutional bounds what is the limit to its power. In an earlier post you stated that we are beyond the point where the people can rise against the Gov, really? F**k that, if I can't change it from the outside I will try to change it from the inside, if that doesn't work then the people have the right to rise against their Government. The Gov needs to become more accountable to its people, not just those with big mouths or big wallets. Again I raise the point that with the current system of taxing, I am not in control of how much I contribute to Gov and to increase its spending increase its rights over the rights of the individual.

 

[homerdog]

When you deny profit you also deny incentive, bright minds will follow the pay checks and innovation will suffer. After you fund "health care", next we'll be entirely funding drug research and then we will need to take that over (not that a good portion of their research isn't already publicly funded), where will it stop. Why not legalize competition and ease some of the mandates that make it impossible for the little guy to succeed and compete, thus driving cost down. Our dollar is falling and electronics are getting cheaper, why because there are few regulations and more and more companies are competing. Innovation is driven by profits and profits go up when more consumers are purchasing your goods or services. This Country was not founded as a socialist nation and has done quite well without being one, why would we want to change it now, if you really wanted to you need to amend the constitution, not ignore it.

 

[homerdog]

Make it possible for the return of the independent doctor who isn't drowned by insurance cost and mandates that he has to spend a great portion of his profits to appease and you will see costs drop. It is more Gov intervention that is driving up the cost of care, not profits.

 

[We TaRdED]

Now there is some dangerous thinking. What about the day when it is your best interest to have microchip identification to prevent identity fraud and terrorism? If you don't bind the government to its constitutional bounds what is the limit to its power. In an earlier post you stated that we are beyond the point where the people can rise against the Gov, really? F**k that, if I can't change it from the outside I will try to change it from the inside, if that doesn't work then the people have the right to rise against their Government. The Gov needs to become more accountable to its people, not just those with big mouths or big wallets. Again I raise the point that with the current system of taxing, I am not in control of how much I contribute to Gov and to increase its spending increase its rights over the rights of the individual.

Nice post man! +rep We all need to realize that big gov't isn't always the best thing for this world. Like you said, what if implanting a chip is allegedly 'for the best welfare of the people'? Is that going to happen? IDK, but they have been thinking about it for certain YouTube - NORTH AMERICAN UNION & VCHIP TRUTH , so unless we are aware of the potentials we are just mindless sheep. Everyone should know by now that the mainstream media is a big money monopoly that is spoon feeding propaganda into the sheeple. The people in power are control freaks, hence their positions.

And if anyone thinks that these people in power have exclusively good intentions and aren't capable of being bought out by lobbyists than go watch more FOX news.

 

[medicineman]

When you deny profit you also deny incentive, bright minds will follow the pay checks and innovation will suffer. After you fund "health care", next we'll be entirely funding drug research and then we will need to take that over (not that a good portion of their research isn't already publicly funded), where will it stop. Why not legalize competition and ease some of the mandates that make it impossible for the little guy to succeed and compete, thus driving cost down. Our dollar is falling and electronics are getting cheaper, why because there are few regulations and more and more companies are competing. Innovation is driven by profits and profits go up when more consumers are purchasing your goods or services. This Country was not founded as a socialist nation and has done quite well without being one, why would we want to change it now, if you really wanted to you need to amend the constitution, not ignore it.

Health "care" and Profit are oxymorons. When you can glean profit from someones illness there is an inherent evil present in that equation. I'm not suggesting taking profit out of all endeavors, just medical, But if pressed on profit, I would prefer a limit so as to reign in the greed motive. I'm for employee owned businesses with the main guy getting the lions share of the profit, but to pay minimum wages to employees then get multimillion dollar salaries and profits off the Rictor scale, is just wrong, especially while cutting life saving procedures.

 

[homerdog]

So doctors who spend half of their life dedicated to their studies shouldn't run their own businesses how they please? Under the system I am proposing doctors who tried to charge astronomical fees wouldn't be in very high demand if there were competition. If there weren't competition that probably means they developed some astonishing new treatment that they should have the right to charge as much as they wished. Same concept as selling dope, if you try to charge some astronomical price even for the best shit you are going to have very few takers (only the docs can't enjoy their own product)(In no way am I insinuating that I or anyone else do or should sell chronic). How do you think those advanced life saving measures were developed? Somebody got paid, and thou generally altruistic Dr's usually like to get paid for the work they did, just like everyone else. Now hospitals and such aren't going to like my idea, as it will for sure cut into their bottom line, and like you said it should be about the patient not the profit.'
Cheers.

 

[ceestyle]

"Although I like to avoid talking about our country in terms of what the constitution said, as it's more relevant to talk about what is good for our country in the context of /today/, the constitution was written in the pursuit of the general welfare of its citizens. The constitution itself was a document provided to give our government the tools to fulfill this end, and to protect the citizens through checks and balances to ensure that this was its ultimate end."

Now there is some dangerous thinking. What about the day when it is your best interest to have microchip identification to prevent identity fraud and terrorism? If you don't bind the government to its constitutional bounds what is the limit to its power. In an earlier post you stated that we are beyond the point where the people can rise against the Gov, really? F**k that, if I can't change it from the outside I will try to change it from the inside, if that doesn't work then the people have the right to rise against their Government. The Gov needs to become more accountable to its people, not just those with big mouths or big wallets. Again I raise the point that with the current system of taxing, I am not in control of how much I contribute to Gov and to increase its spending increase its rights over the rights of the individual.

The idea would be that you have capable representatives in government that make rational decisions about current issues. Our current leadership demonstrates the case when you have neither ration nor respect for the constitution. We collectively decide what is best for "us" by voting on referenda, local issues, and by electing representatives that best reflect our national interests. If we can't voice objection loudly enough through our reps, then there is something preventing the system from working the way it should.

All of a sudden when I say that we should make decisions based on the world we live in, for some reason people chime in thinking I want to live in a Brave New World or otherwise extend federal government. That's not my point. I /do/ believe the restrictions on power are important. I don't believe that the Bill of Rights are the Ten Commandments.

I certainly wasn't saying I enjoy the government being as powerful relative to the populace - it terms of armaments - but that is technology and the world we live in. In terms of accountability, if you outsource government you've also outsourced the blame.