"Causes harm"?? In what way does a person keeping his money cause harm to someone who has none? I mean, that's the person being penalized in this situation: the person with money - the government determines - to spare.
As earlier, I don't as much think of that as an issue of freedom, but of an issue of social justice. As a source of revenue, tax money from the highest income earners contributes much to government coffers, such tax dollars can be used to fund social services, that benefit the socially and economically disadvantaged members in society.
When a government with a
particular political ideology, enact policies that favor the powerful and wealthy in society, and leave those who are less better off out in the cold, I believe that has the potential to cause harm for others, and it limits their freedom. For example, if you cut taxes for the wealthy - which reduces revenue, and consequently cut social programs to the disadvantaged; then I would contend that is when you are 'causing harm'.
Was there any real competition present? Because without both privatization and competition, I can see how there wouldn't be improvement. Our phone system was a monopoly years ago. The gov't broke it into competitive pieces and we have great service at very low rates. Seriously, I think we can at least agree that having a choice in communications providers is not too much freedom, can't we?
Almost everyone universally would agree that competition is a good thing, but competition can only exist, in my view, with some form of government regulation of the market.
In regard to the telecommunication industry, the market isn't diverse as the United States. Telstra, even before privatization, have virtually dominated the market. For example, they own all the telephone lines, and hence, they charge other telecommunication companies a 'line rental' charge. However, there is steady competition growing in the sector, and the government has recently announced that they will legislate to break up Telstra into two separate entities, a move that has been welcomed with consumers and business experts alike.
Also, much expense derives from the fact that our telecommunication infrastructure isn't advanced as much as say, the United States.
In the energy industry, there are a number of companies in competition, both state owned and private, in some circumstances, companies will partly privatized, for example, with Energex, the retail component is owned privately, but the management of the energy distribution network is owned by the Queensland government.
Other companies are wholly state owned, such as Country energy being owned by the NSW state government. A contrast to this would be companies such as AGL and Origin, which are privately owned.
Anyway, sorry about the semantics, but my point being is that, more or less, there is a fair amount of competition in each sector. Although I have a co-worker from the United States who rightfully says that the US telecommunications market is more diverse, cheaper, and competitive than Australia's.
I agree with you on both of these counts, actually. Like I said, those examples were off the top of my head. If we can't ensure there can be real competition for the profits, it makes no sense to privatize something that the gov't already runs, however poorly.
Of course, I hope we can agree that while there are benefits to private ownership of industries, the penetration of market forces into some industries can be detrimental for society.
Personally I think everyone should be contributing to society. If you're not, then you don't belong in society at all. People who refuse to earn a living, and in the UK as well as Spain we've got a real problem with these "dole scroungers", are parasites, tantamount to criminals in my mind.
I think that social security, as it stands, should be done away with, and those unemployed should be required to work for their local community. For this they would obviously be paid, perhaps more than they would get on social security. It amazes me they don't do this already: what is the point of giving someone welfare if they have no intention of working?
having been unemployed a couple of times in my life, I'd have jumped at the chance to work rather than sit at home.
Better for society I think.
We have that kind of program here, it's called 'Work for the dole' -
Mutual Obligation/Work for the Dole
but the things that come to mind include any services that are privatised here that your government does for you. You're right about the drug thing; little drives me more nuts than throwing good tax dollars away on protecting adults from harming themselves with their own stupid behavior. The gun issue you're already well aware of. Oh yeh, and we elect our head of state ... not always well, but at least I get a say in the matter.
