What should be owned publicly rather than privately? Anything?

[Mairead]

Should certain products/services be provided by publicly-owned, non-profit companies rather than by privately-owned, for-profit companies?

Take electricity, for example. It's possible to get along without it, even in the US, but not without marginalising oneself. In general, it seems fair to say that it's something that everyone needs access to. Should individuals be allowed to profit from such a universal need when it's not something produced by their personal skill and labor?

How about other things? The internet, for example? Or phones? Mass transit? Food? Water? Education? Other things?

[bryant69]

1. I think when the product might differ than it should be privately owned

But electricity is going to be the same no matter who provides it - it's not like you can get better electricity - instead the only way private corporations have to maximize profit is to cut services and maintenance. There's no real competition.

Phone service on the other hand one could argue shoudl be privately owned, because different phone companies can compete by offering different services and different prices for said services.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[htuttle]

15. But I think the phone lines themselves should be publicly owned

As should cable TV lines. Then the municipality can contract out/license access to them to private companies to provide the services.

It's the same model used now for other shared resources, like the public airwaves. Keeping ownership of the infrastructure keeps the leverage on the side of the municipality.

[ananda]

2. yes

All telephone, cable or direct access tv, electricity, water, gas, and oil should be non-profit and regulated strictly.

ananda

[thecrow]

3. VOTING

Need I say more?

[Swamp Rat]

4. That's a good place to start.

[Nikia]

5. I see your point

I do work in the food industry, however. While basic food is a need for everyone, there is a lot of skill and labor that goes into food production from many aspects. Basic agriculturual commodities do require labor. They also do require skill in science. Some farms are owned by corporations, but some are still owned by private individuals who are taking considerable personal risk.
Processed food requires a lot of labor. Formulating products from cheese spread to breakfast cereal to frozen entrees takes a lot of skill. Making safe products of consistent quality takes a successful quality program. While I do think that the USDA and FDA would be able to assure quality if they expanded their departments, I think that research and development would go down the tubes. If the USDA and FDA weren't sufficiently expanded, quality would suffer too.
I am not involved in those other industries. Generally though utilities consist of a uniform product in which one big company provides or did provide for a relatively large area. I don't see why these couldn't be public.

[laststeamtrain]

6. Hey, I have an idea...

Why don't we divide the earth up into little squares and sell them to one another.

But seriously...I think most of things you mention should be collectively owned and operated. We could have a organization devoted to the common good to do it. We could call it 'government'.

I'm pretty much of a social democrat. But beyond the 'basics' there'd have to be 'for-profit' business. Maybe NOT Capitalism, but business, yes. At least for non-manufactured goods.

I love that you asked this question.

[MercutioATC]

7. Air traffic control.

Of course, I'm slightly biased.

[papau]

8. The common should be public - and things (health)should be "common" unless

an efficiency can be identified to justify it being private.

Which means most is private.

But I do not buy the "all gov workers are lazy, so everything should be private" any more than I buy "all union workers are lazy, so there should not be unions", or "all non-management workers are lazy so workplace rules should be a constant guard against non-management worker down-time - clock those potty breaks".

Indeed health "insurance" is a classic of a need that everyone has that has zero efficiency added by having the transfer payments collected privately and transfered to providers privately - indeed the attempt to "profit" by limiting claims takes human values out of the system so as to increase return on capital and higher CEO salaries - better to limit claims based on rules we as a society agree to. Indeed there is no need for "capital" and therefore no need for a return on capital in a process that is a simple transfer system. Social Security operates with a 1% overhead as a transfer system - but health insurance has a 40% overhead as a private system.

[greekspeak]

9. Some yes

Mass transportation: Airlines, trains, busses etc.

Natural resources: Oil, water, coal, etc.


Some I do not want them to control. I don't want the government to have the monopoly on ideas and communication. Thus, I don't want them to totally control the internet, newspapers, telephones even education. In a perfect world, maybe some of these things the government could control. But would you really want the PNACers to have complete control over education, telephone and the internet?

[Mairead]

11. Is "public control" always a synonym for "government control", for you?

I have to ask because for me it never is -- when I specified "public" I really did mean public, as in co-op, not government.

If you think about the question in that light, does it change your answer at all?

[greekspeak]

23. I don't really know.

My concern is to take the key resources of life out of the hands of few people who profit from them, and make them more accessible for all. However that can be done best, with a good benefit for all, should be the standard. How many people starve to death, die from curable diseases, get sick from tainted products, breath filthy air, miss opportunities to broaden horizons, etc. all so a few rich people can protect their profit margins and get even richer? That is ridiculous, and in many cases inhuman. Co-op, government, whatever it takes to end the stranglehold the richest people in America have over the rest of us, especially the most vulnerable in our society.

[TahitiNut]

10. Anything that requires property easements.

The power transmission infrastructure and the telecommunications transmission infrastructure are immediate candidates, along with gas, water, and sewer. Then the transportation infrastructure - rail and air in particular.

I'd then prohibit the privatization of any continuing government function. Mercenary armies are a horrendous example.

[Obamarama]

13. Like beach access. Very contentious issue here in Michigan...

The Michigan Supreme Court just ruled that the public has the right to walk along any part of the beaches of the Great Lakes as long as you aren't going on to peoples' private property.

There was a property rights group (no doubt comprised of greedy, mean-spirited Republicans) who were arguing for the right to prevent the public from walking along the beach in front of their homes.

The same selfish group is already planning to appeal the ruling.

"Strolling along a Great Lakes beach is no crime, Michigan's Supreme Court ruled Friday in upholding the time-honored tradition of beach-walking.

The court, with five of seven justices fully agreeing, found that "walking the beach ....is inherent in the exercise of traditionally protected public rights."

The decision reverses a state Court of Appeals judgment that walking along the shoreline was trespassing. That ruling had stunned many Michiganders, for whom beach-walking is a long-standing tradition."

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/beachwalk30e_20050730.htm

[TahitiNut]

25. Yeah, I'd prohibit private ownership of much shoreline property.

Limited leases could be offered as concessions, but public access to oceans, seas, and major lakes should (I believe) be preserved in perpetuity for the people. If shorelines were kept inviolably public within 200 yards of the high water, then the property along that boundary would still be the "prime" real estate. That way, the elitism wouldn't be prohibitive - depriving the public of easy access to a common resource. There're regions (entire nations?) in Europe where private ownership of shoreline property is prohibited and the quality of public life is that much more benefited.

[Mr.Green93]

12. Natural resources, Food production, healthcare

Housing stocks, Media and communications, if the people use it the State should provide it.

[Nikia]

27. Not food. See my post #5

I would like to see the expansion of food stamps, WIC, or other programs though.

[acmejack]

14. All utilitarian aspects of life, ideally.

But the "Commons", those things needed to subsist, air, water, etc. should supersede "property rights" and the so-called "right of capture".

[Sgent]

16. I'm not going to be liked

But IMHO, our basic assumption is that everything should be owned privately, unless there is a natural monopoly that requires strict oversite. IMHO, the government will almost always be less effecient than a truely competitive market.

So.... on my list of things to be publically owned:

Rail track / right of ways
Electrical Distribution
Hydroelectric generators
Telephone in areas w/o 3+ competitors
High speed internet in areas w/o 3+ competitors
Airports, Shipping facilities
Cable distribution

I think there should be a mechanism so that a new entrant who wants to allow for new distribution points, build new damns, etc, may expand and construct such an addition and have exclusive access for so many years.

Now, that being said, I also think that some things that are not publically owned, should be heavily regulated (much moreso than today). This IMHO would include operating systems, healthcare / hospitals, nursing homes, and a few other areas (those were off the top of my head).

[freshharbor]

17. I think everything should be publicly controlled

At the very least. The populous should 'own' anything that has a group benefit. Like utilities (including the Internet) and life safety services. Non-Publicly owned companies should only existing for the 'nice-to-have' luxuries in life. Of course that is subjective to your personal view on what that would be.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. voting machines... healthcare.... water... weapon manufactures

.

[applegrove]

19. They should all be regulated. And where it makes most sense..

like health care or energy companies..it should be publicly owned. We already give certain monopoly power to pharma - so it is not as if the concept of monopoly helping the market doesn't exist. Monopoly over basic health care is also a good way to go - give that power to government and then they get the 10,000 med students a year to be ones who have a calling & a passion for medicine to sign up - instead of the ones who just want to make a killing. Med schools are notoriously hard to get into. Why not use that to your advantage ...that it is a calling..like they do in all the other Western Democracies in the world.

In some cases, at some stages of national growth of countries...nationalizing some industries makes sense for a time - to meet specific national goals - so that the wealth can be shared and then at a later date split up at a good price for all. Specifically where the concentration of wealth is so severely compromised that it is the only way to restore some balance.

[jmowreader]

20. The defense industry

If we want a new truck for our army, we put out a specification: must have this much ground clearance, must have this many horsepower, must weigh no more than this, must be able to carry this many troops or this much cargo.

Then all these different contractors come up with a design proposal. We then pay the two or three most promising ones ("most promising" usually also includes "can they really make 5,000 of these in two years?") big bucks to flesh out the designs and submit their trucks for testing. The truck that has parts made in the most Congressional districts is chosen, and we pay them more money to enter low-rate production. After the bugs are worked out (if they ever are), we pay them even more money to enter full production.

(An aside: I am very certain that you could submit this bid proposal for a weapons system: "We have invented a new weapons system that the Army really needs. All we know about it is that it will kill lots of people in front of it, it won't kill anyone beside or behind it, and it has parts from over 350 congressional districts in it." and receive a National Stock Number, a name for it, and an order for a thousand of them.)

Where does all this money go? Quite a lot of it to stockholders. Now think: if we were to cut stockholders out of the picture, could we get more weapons, or better ones, for the same money? Certainly. And if stockholders weren't in the picture, would we have gone to war in Iraq? Well, probably, because the Smirking Murder Monkey would have still been in the White House. But it would have been a cheaper war.

The government does produce some weapons. Example: artillery barrels. The United States government owns the Watervliet Arsenal, which is a machine shop capable of making cannon barrels. Enormous cannon barrels--74 feet long by 74 inches diameter. No private contractor can make that product; the equipment you need to do it is far too expensive. They also make small arms ammunition. The government should make all weapons, simply to take the profit margin out of the equation.

No profit from war means there would be almost no war.

[Cassandra]

21. I would include things that have been tried privately and don't work...

that way. In NYC, years ago, mass transit and firefighting were once privately owned and operated and it just didn't work. I think physical phone and electrical lines that are used in common should be publicly owned because no individual company is going to put in capital improvements that will benefit his competitors. That's why we had the most recent blackout. I'm not sure what you would do with a municipality that can't or won't upgrade. Water quality and delivery are also some things I want in public hands; do you want to have to decide someday between water or food with your limited resources? Health care also is inefficient as a completely private system. Doctors should be private, able to set rates at insurance rates or higher if they can get it, hospitals a mix of public and private, and health insurance should be public.

[Liberal In Texas]

22. Roads. Streets and highways. How would you like to pay a toll every time

you go to work? Or to the grocery? We have toll roads, and that's bad enough. Many people pay tolls every day to commute. Now take that to it's logical conclusion, as I've told a fundie friend of mine, when you get to the end of your street there would be a gate with toll slot to toss your coins in. When you get on another street to drive downtown, you will have to toss more coins into machines at, say, 2 or 3 more "plazas".

Repeat when returning home.

Is it privatization you want,? I asked my fundie friend, then that's what we'll have. He just mumbled and changed the subject. Like they do.

[Mairead]

24. New Labour (what a misnomer!) are thinking of doing more or less exactly

that: taxing by miles driven. What a wonderful way to send the proles back to bicycles, eh? The remaining petrol reserves can then be consumed by the more 'deserving'.

[Cleita]

26. All the above.

My utopia would of course have free education and health care, but I would also have free public transportation and child care. Free utilities could also be factored in up to a certain level of usage. I don't think we should support the entire electrical bill in a rich man's mansion or other utilities for that matter.