City in Georgia that oursources its government

[3rdnlng]

Cry me a river. Why should the gov't have constraint? They are above the mundane, cannibal existence of the private sector. They SHOULD be working for the common good, NOT private profit. SHOULD is a key word here. You are trying to equalize the two sectors. You can't do this, they operate ethically and under the law differently.

 

This tells me all I need to know.

[ExiledInIllinois]

This tells me all I need to know.

 

They are fundamentally above, it has to be that way. Doesn't mean it happens in real life that way. The problem comes when the person makes the transfer to the public from the private sector. Not knocking the private sector work ethic here, they are out there hustling a buck, destroying their competition in a highly competitive game to get ahead. Nothing is wrong with that at the private sector level... The problem occurs when they make the transfer to the public sector... They have to start working for the public/common good. Classic example of this is Rod Blago... Totally couldn't make the switch and got himself whacked.

[KD in CA]

Yes it was corruption amongst other things. I know why they signed the deal. I have said it numerous times. The city ran up a bunch of deficits hiring private contractors to do work around the city. Cost overruns were outrageous. They needed the money. The pols were smart they shifted the focus to the public pay roll and many citizens wanted the public pay roll slashed. You neeed public severants to maintain the parking garages, parking meters, & the Chicago Skyway. The privatized those entities and fired the workers. The deal to privatize was crony capitalism! It went from $6 a day to park to $6.50 and hour

 

Yeah, because parking rates would never go up if the government was running the system.

[Rob's House]

Cry me a river. Why should the gov't have constraint? They are above the mundane, cannibal existence of the private sector. They SHOULD be working for the common good, NOT private profit. SHOULD is a key word here. You are trying to equalize the two sectors. You can't do this, they operate ethically and under the law differently.

Uhhh....okay. Not sure what any of this has to do with what I said, but whatever.

 

The basic point was not to equalize public & private but rather point out to what extent the opposite is true. Nor was the point that government power should be as constrained (or limited if you prefer) as that of private entities but rather to point out the significance of the distinction.

 

Because government is not constrained by the limitations of private entities, those in government have far greater power to forcibly impose their will on supposedly free individuals. This power is dangerous. I find it silly to fret about the threat of private companies, who you can simply choose not to do business with, while scoffing at concerns over the ever-increasing scope of relatively unchecked government power. Especially silly when you understand that the only way a corporation can assume such powers (I.e. monopoly) is with the assistance of government, while government requires no such enabling by anything corporate to impose its will on you. Therefore, government is necessarily more dangerous than corporations & its power & scope should be carefully limited and constantly monitored with a skeptical eye rather than the trusting eye of a sucker - well it should be if you want to live in a free & prosperous society.