We know the corporations are running everything... but it's still scary as hell, especially when you've never even heard of them.

This is more a problem of big government than big business though, right, or did I miss something?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This is more a problem of big government than big business though, right, or did I miss something?


To me it seems like these are examples of reckless attempts to make government smaller by outsourcing basic services to contractors. Jails and public schools are not extravagant, they are absolutely essential services that citizens expect of any developed nation.

Sometimes privatization does produce a savings for the government. But usually at the expense of less accountability, lower quality of service, and the creation of fewer good jobs. Other times it costs taxpayers more, and only serves to line the pockets politicians and contractors. I'd say the US hiring of mercenary outfits to fight in our wars falls in that later category.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This is more a problem of big government than big business though, right, or did I miss something?

To me it seems like these are examples of reckless attempts to make government smaller by outsourcing basic services to contractors. Jails and public schools are not extravagant, they are absolutely essential services that citizens expect of any developed nation.
Sometimes privatization does produce a savings for the government. But usually at the expense of less accountability, lower quality of service, and the creation of fewer good jobs. Other times it costs taxpayers more, and only serves to line the pockets politicians and contractors. I'd say the US hiring of mercenary outfits to fight in our wars falls in that later category.


I would agree mostly, but only because government doesn't have a "market place" like we do. They make monolithic decisions mired in layers of politics instead of personal expectations, taste, and past experience (and don't forget price!). If you, I, or my town makes a bad decision, we reap the results and are in a better position to rectify than some people thousands of miles away ( I don't think the people in New Orleans will ever let the funding for the levies dry up again, even if some federal bill doesn't pass ). To me, this video highlights a real danger, and that is increased governmental responsibility leads the the creation of mega corporations to manage the affairs of large government responsibility. A self reinforcing problem that is very dangerous indeed. This is the problem that many have seen from the start of this country, and Eisenhower reminded us of only 50(god I'm getting old) 60 years ago, the industrial military complex. This issue is part and parcel with large, federal, central banking as well...it's a dance that we haven't seen the end of yet.

GeeSussFreeK, You're right to think that governments have the ability to make things worse. But you are sadly misinformed if you do not realize that unchecked capitalism is the only logical reason that giant multinational corporations exist. For instance, Exxon Mobil does not manage governmental affairs, if you didn't notice.

The instance of PPP, is a recent trend in governmental policy, it has not existed since national governments were created, which would be the case if your argument made any sense. While outsourcing to private corporations is the decision of governments, the lobbying industry funded by corporations is in most cases more organized, better funded and acquires the ear of politicians much more often than the will of the people (democracy). Corporations hopping in bed with governments can't be blamed on the size of government, I can't even fathom how you could come to that conclusion.

Downsizing the government is necessary in many instances when it is the problem, but assuming that it is the cause of unchecked capitalism, when in fact it is the only check to capitalism is asinine. (outside of individual consumer choices = every dollar is a vote for the way you want the world to be)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
increased governmental responsibility leads the the creation of mega corporations to manage the affairs of large government responsibility. A self reinforcing problem that is very dangerous indeed.

@Peroxide "unchecked capitalism"

There is no such thing as unchecked capitalism unless the government gets involved and that is precisely what is happening here. It is the consumers role to provide the "checks" in capitalism.

If you disagree with a corporation like Serco, why not simply refrain from giving them your money and let them go out of business? Ah yes, because you don't have a choice in the matter - the government is taking your money and spending it how it sees fit, not how you see fit. That is the problem. We as a cultural group are not making decisions about the kind of world we want to live in, we are subcontracting it to a small majority who are choosing not to make this fleeting existence a better place for all, but rather a richer place for themselves.

Let's be honest, if you were in the same situation could we really trust you to make the right decisions? The fact is there are very few people who could trusted with such a monumental responsibility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This is more a problem of big government than big business though, right, or did I miss something?


no, this is a problem of smaller government... making government less in charge of different things, outsourcing it to private companies

big government would be the government setting up institutions to handle this stuff

big/small government is a ruse anyhoos
big doesn't necessarily mean inefficient
small doesn't necessarily mean efficient

when talking about government though, its better to use big and small... than the term efficient
or corrupt

>> ^imstellar28:

"unchecked capitalism"
There is no such thing as unchecked capitalism unless the government gets involved and that is precisely what is happening here. It is the consumers role to provide the "checks" in capitalism.



Yes there is. What the fuck is corporate law for?... What the fuck is copyright law?... Comsumer protection acts, etc. They are checks on the market.

Also, I agree with you on the point that it is, ALONG WITH the government's role, the consumer's role to provide checks, I thought that was obvious when I said, (from above comment)

"outside of individual consumer choices = every dollar is a vote for the way you want the world to be"

How about this--it is both small governments and big government's fault! Small government because lax regulations have allowed this company to become a beast and big government for pumping more money into it.

Is this imbalance really so hard to see? Do we split our own culture so far that it boils down to talking points? Too much government = GOP talking point, Unchecked Capatalism = DNC talking point... Mixture of both = Who cares, let's party in Jamacia and Lawdeedaw is a dumass...

Let's think for ourselves and realize balance is the key. Moderation.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

How about this--it is both small governments and big government's fault!

I'll go you one better -- the very game of making this about "big" vs. "small" is to make sure nobody spends any time demanding that the people responsible actually do a better job.

>> ^imstellar28:
We as a cultural group are not making decisions about the kind of world we want to live in, we are subcontracting it to a small majority who are choosing not to make this fleeting existence a better place for all, but rather a richer place for themselves.

Right, which is why we as a society should stand up and demand a better government, instead of a "smaller" government. People need to realize that all that means is turning over government functions to private entities whose explicit goal is to make themselves richer, while expecting that it will somehow result in making this fleeting existence a better place for all. That's a step away from the desired state, not towards it.

@NetRunner

There's nothing "small" about a government which takes 30-50% of a person's income and maintains military bases in most countries on the planet. You think the answer is giving more power to elected officials, but what you keep ignoring is that the private sector is made up of the same types of people. I mean, did you not watch this video which said that 85% of Serco's employees came from the public sector? Characters in both groups have the same ambition for power and wealth, so both will make similar decisions when faced with a given situation. The details will vary from person to person but invariably individuals in both groups will vote to increase their own wealth and power, not to make the world a better place.

The monopoly on force (government) should persist only to enforce the rule of law, nothing more. Cultural development is a personal choice and as such must be left to the people because a single person (or group) should not decide the culture of a nation. And yes, I would say that roads, education, telecommunications, healthcare and the like are all cultural characteristics. They have to be because they have only existed for small portions of our history - whereas the rule of law has (conceptually) existed, unchanged, ever since the first two humans learned to communicate with each other.

"Don't fuck with my life and I won't fuck with yours"

What you are effectively suggesting is that we take the same pool of greedy assholes, and instead of dividing them into camp A and camp B, we should put them all under the same command chain (even more centralized power). Worse still, you want to give the very same corporate guys you are angry about the monopoly of force over other people! Don't the likes of Serco, Halliburton, BP, etc. cause enough humanitarian damage as it is, without an explicit license to kill?

They must be evil. You can tell by the music.

>> ^imstellar28:

There's nothing "small" about a government which takes 30-50% of a person's income and maintains military bases in most countries on the planet.

My point was that "small" government is a stupid way of looking at things in the first place. If you accept the basic fundamental role of a state is to establish and enforce laws, you shouldn't be caring about whether it's "small" or not, but whether it's acting with the interest of the governed in mind, or not.
>> ^imstellar28:
You think the answer is giving more power to elected officials,

No. This is what the "small" government fallacy leads you to believe. Because I refuse to view everything through your lens of "small" vs. "big", you mislabel me as somehow being in favor of being for "big" government as an end in and of itself. Not true.

I think government should be like a giant open-source operating system. Everyone gets to use it, and anyone can contribute new and improved rules for making it work better. My goal is to try to persuade people to see society this way in general, because I think changing societal norms is the only long-term fix for any of these problems.

My point is that the arguments we should be having are "how do we make this system work well", and not spend all our time fighting about how many lines of code are in the OS, or how much memory it uses. I'm open to the idea that cutting lines of code or unnecessary features could make the system work better overall, but I'm vehemently against the idea that we must be single-mindedly focused on reducing the scope of the OS at all times.
>> ^imstellar28:
but what you keep ignoring is that the private sector is made up of the same types of people.

Actually, that's part of why I said that all this talk about "small" government is a distraction. The focus shouldn't be on moving public services into the private sector, it should be on holding the people who're not serving the public interest accountable, and finding systematic ways to prevent people like that from abusing the system.

If the argument is that privatization increases accountability, that's at least the right way to approach the topic. If the argument is that this is the systematic fix, I think you've got a lot of work to do to convince me there's any benefit to handing prison management over to a for-profit company...
>> ^imstellar28:
The monopoly on force (government) should persist only to enforce the rule of law, nothing more. Cultural development is a personal choice and as such must be left to the people because a single person (or group) should not decide the culture of a nation. And yes, I would say that roads, education, telecommunications, healthcare and the like are all cultural characteristics. They have to be because they have only existed for small portions of our history - whereas the rule of law has (conceptually) existed, unchanged, ever since the first two humans learned to communicate with each other.
Here I think we have a much bigger schism. Not the one you might think though -- I think we're part of the same culture. I think implicit in your statement is that because we disagree on some/most of these topics, we are by definition not part of the same culture, and I think as long as you're a citizen of the Western world, we're all in the same culture.

Beyond that, I think if I really pressed you on taxation, I think you'd eventually admit to believing there's a universal moral principle involved, and that it's not some sort of simple cultural preference, just like if you pressed me on health care, I'd admit to believing there's a universal moral principle involved, and that it's not some sort of simple cultural preference.

@NetRunner

To boil it all down,

Facts:
Serco provides education, military, transportation, and prison infrastructure, among other things. 85% of their employees come from the public sector, and the majority of their revenue comes from taxed income.

Your position:
1. You want the government to provide (fund) the same services Serco does, so no problem (with Serco) here.
2. You also do not mind that the source of funding is taxed income, as opposed to voluntary consumerism.
3. The only thing you seem to care about is that they are a "private" company instead of a "public" company. As far as I can tell, they are only private in name. If it looks like a duck (performs "government" functions), walks like a duck (is staffed by government employees), and sounds like a duck (is funded by the government)..it's a freaking duck. The change you are proposing is merely semantics.

With the amount of business ties and lobbying they probably do, I seriously doubt putting them under Obama is going to make a lick of difference. BP, Shell, and Exxon already seem to have control over our military and I doubt Serco is any different. I'm guessing they are the same guys who bribe federal judges to send innocent kids to jail to fill their prisons.

On the contrary, my position is that:
1. Multinational corporations like Serco are almost always evil, and should probably not exist.
2. Forcing people to fund multi-billion dollar corporations is not the right way to build a better world.
3. People should be able to vote with their dollar, and keep their money in their own communities.

You are arguing against privatization, but Serco is not really a private company. Private companies are not funded by tax revenue. The Mom and Pop diner in your neighborhood, that is a private company. This is just one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position. Private vs. Public is irrelevant, it makes no difference in this situation as far as I can tell.

The real question here is what is the proper role of government, aka, what should the government be funding with taxpayer money.

Ohooookay, you can't fabricate your opponent's position in an argument. You are putting words in NetRunner's mouth and then arguing against them, you might be turning into a troll.

Cease and desist immediately.

@Peroxide

I've argued with NetRunner enough that I think I can guess his position, but maybe I'm totally wrong and he can correct me

@imstellar28 that was pretty much a straw man argument, like Peroxide said.
>> ^imstellar28:

On the contrary, my position is that:
1. Multinational corporations like Serco are almost always evil, and should probably not exist.
2. Forcing people to fund multi-billion dollar corporations is not the right way to build a better world.
3. People should be able to vote with their dollar, and keep their money in their own communities.

I'd agree with the first two, for certain definitions of "corporations" -- specifically, rigidly hierarchical organizations dedicated to enriching shareholders above all else.

On the third, I think it's at least a first-pass attempt to propose some sort of alternative, but I think you've got to flesh out a lot more how people "vote with their dollar" when it comes to prison management. Do those who are to be imprisoned get to shop for the jail that suits their individual needs best?
>> ^imstellar28:
You are arguing against privatization, but Serco is not really a private company. Private companies are not funded by tax revenue. The Mom and Pop diner in your neighborhood, that is a private company.

I'm not sure why you're saying this as if it's at all contrary to what I believe. Maybe we're quibbling over semantics of what "privatization" means in this context, but to me, in this context, what governments are doing with Serco is the very definition of privatization.

As for Serco not being a private company, I don't think selling goods or services to a government makes a corporation a part of government. Serco doesn't have to turn its profits back over to the Treasury of any government, nor does one have to be elected to the position of Serco CEO. To me, that's the problem -- taxes are being siphoned off to make someone a profit, while accountability to the people is further diluted.

But I don't think selling goods and services to government automatically makes the company part of government. I don't think any of us begrudge Staples selling office supplies to the state legislature, or Ford selling cars to police departments, or AT&T selling telecomm services to the FBI.

>> ^imstellar28:
This is just one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position. Private vs. Public is irrelevant, it makes no difference in this situation as far as I can tell.
The real question here is what is the proper role of government, aka, what should the government be funding with taxpayer money.


So close and yet so far. Yes, this is one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position (see above!).

However, the real question here isn't "what is the proper role of government" so much as "how do we create a better society for us to live in?"

One may subsequently argue that society will be better with "less" government, but the bottom line is that things like the military, prisons, transportation infrastructure, and schools are all going to exist, and they're all going to be largely controlled by people who aren't you. You can either a) set up a framework of expectations within society so that anyone controlling those things must do so for the good of the people or lose that control, b) set up a framework where a small number of individuals control those things, with their only obligation being to enrich themselves, or c) let those with the guns make the framework what they want.

And yes, I realize that there's more of an equilibrium between those three than a real choice, but I want to push the equilibrium as much towards option a) as I can...

All they need is to run institutions that house people who can't control their psychic abilities and we'll have a pretty decent groundwork for a Starcraft in real life. Next steps are for them to utilize their private prisons for their own private army, develop stims, then branch into space traffic control (hinges on developing our space tech -- lazy present humanity) and we're alllllll set. The real Jim Raynor can then be taken out of prison and employed as a marine.

I like the way you think, Serco, because if we don't have a private company to do this, we're gonna get fucked up by a tenacious alien race.

Why no *downunder ?

Invocations (downunder) cannot be called by NaMeCaF because NaMeCaF is not privileged - sorry.

Downunder was there...
>> ^NaMeCaF:

Why no downunder ?

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.