What do you think about revoking the social benefits of drug users?

[mrstickball]

highwaystar101 said:

Chairman-Mao said:
I am very conservative so I basically think there should be no social programs at all (everything should be privatized) so I would definitely support this idea. Why should my tax money go towards health care for some fucked up addict? Its supposed to go to honest hardworking people as well as infrastructure and other programs.

Whilst I agree that the majority of the economy should be privatised where effective, I want to take you up on the point of total privatisation. I don't see how that would work I'm afraid. If you have private police who would they work for? The people who pay them the most? People need guaranteed protection from crime, Who would protect those who can't afford suffice protection? Crime is prevalent in poor areas and yet these are the ones who may not be able to afford police. And so on.

Whilst I agree most things work well in a privatised way, some things would not work well in total privatisation such the police, fire services, the military, roads, etc...

I think there needs to be an understanding of what we determine is 'privatization'

Privatization may not be to where people pay a direct amount of money to hire people to provide services. Privatization may be to where companies compete for government contracts to provide services, rather than the government forcing the assignment to themselves.

For example, a private police force would (and we have these in various ways such as rent-a-cops and other security systems):

The government requires each area to have a staffed police force with an X-to-Y ratio of cops to citizens. How the police force is developed is through contracts and bidding by private security forces. The public can be informed on which have offered their services, the prices it would cost (which would be funded through income or other taxes), and their records for service.

The government then awards the private firm with the best offer the contract to police the district. In this way, it forces competition. If the police provide bad service, or cause issues, they can be fired. Unlike government police forces, entire teams could be fired or removed without worries about police coverage, as other firms would be available for immediate deployment, should a police force be considered too inept.

If no private forces are available for conctract in the district, then the government provides services using a general fund.

In such a system, it provides much competition where and when available, while ensuring that everyone gets police forces as needed. In America, we have private EMS services that work alongside public EMS/911 services - how and why would police be any different?

Oh, and highwaystar - you can have privatized roads, too. We do this in America for certain roadways. It saves the government billions of dollars a year. Also, when roads are repaired, in some cases, private construction companies offer bids on the projects. Under those systems, the yield is a much cheaper price than if you have a nationalized department of transportation doing it (again, I know this...I worked for a city government before).

Many systems can be privatized in a hybrid 'socialized private' system - where private companies are contracted via public funds, such as the concept of school vouchers.