Social Democrats in the Wilderness

[The Brain]

Of course you can quantify costs like scandals and inmates escaping.

To whom is this written?

If to me, then, yes, I can do so:  4 and 14, respectively.

I think that you are pretty irrelevant in this matter.

[crazy canuck]

You have taken us completely off topic.  What we are taking about are ventures that are taken over by private actors but which government still pays for.    We are not taking about private actors operating in a free market but private actors performing functions for government at the pay of government.

You don't understand what my topic is, I think.  The issue isn't who is paying for a good or service, but rather what you hope to accomplish by purchasing that good or service.  Some of the things you would hope to accomplish are things that government alone would want to do (e.g. put people in prison) while others are things that both governments and non-governmental actors would want to do (eg drive from point A to point B).  Where possible, you would like to determine the best way to accomplish the goal via competing ideas or implementations of an idea (eg "should I buy a Ford or a Chevy?").  That is more difficult in the case of prisons not because there is some government subsidy involved, but because there is little competition for the job and there are non-quantifiable  variables involved (eg cost versus escape rates).  The latter is what makes some tasks unsuitable for the private sector, not the fact that competing private sector firms will not be more efficient.

edit: also, often these ventures are also monopolies so I really dont understand what point you are trying to make in the context of the discussion I was having with our British friend.

I don't understand your use of monopoly in this context, and the point I am making is that the cost of doing something is not fixed.

If you are ignoring who is paying for the service then your are turning a blind eye to the distorting effects of the government role in funding that service.   The private actor no longer has to worry about maintaining its business in the free market.  It turns its attention to milking as much as it can out of government both in terms of obtaining more revenue from government and cutting as much of the service as it can to improve profits.   This can turn out to be a very bad deal for the government.  So much so that the government would have been better off never privitising the service in the first place.

[grumbler]

I think that you are pretty irrelevant in this matter.

You think poorly. 

[The Brain]

I think that you are pretty irrelevant in this matter.

You think poorly. 

[garbon]

He's on the rag.

[grumbler]

If you are ignoring who is paying for the service then your are turning a blind eye to the distorting effects of the government role in funding that service.   The private actor no longer has to worry about maintaining its business in the free market. 

I see no reason to make this assumption.  The market comes into effect when buyers and sellers both wish to do business.  The fact that there is but a single buyer of a given service (running a prison, for example) doesn't keep multiple sellers from competing for that business, and this provides exactly the incentive to reduce the cost to government that one would seek - though not without its own, perhaps less quantifiable, costs.

It turns its attention to milking as much as it can out of government both in terms of obtaining more revenue from government and cutting as much of the service as it can to improve profits. This can turn out to be a very bad deal for the government.  So much so that the government would have been better off never privitising the service in the first place.

You are describing bad government here, not privatization.  If a government department is providing a service, it turns its attention to milking as much as it can out of government both in terms of obtaining more revenue from government and increasing the size of the bureaucratic empire it contains so as to maximize the ego gratification of the bureaucrats who are running it.

Good government requires performance or it finds a new supplier.  The problem good government has is not that they are helpless in the face of corporations once a contract is signed, but that even good government can find it so difficult to quantify the desired performance (especially in terms of risk) that it must needs take on the function itself.

[grumbler]

He's on the rag.

Sorry to hear that.  Give him my condolences.

[garbon]

Sorry to hear that.  Give him my condolences.

Give 'im yourself.

[Oexmelin]

The question is whether a meaningful distinction can be made between collective institutions that reflect moral principles and those that autonomously promote and seek to implement a particular moral agenda. 

Yes, I thought that was clear enough from what followed. I should have stated the conclusion more explicitely. And that is still the question that was asked from the begining (see below).

There is a distinction between the proposition that collective action is "informed by morals" and the separate proposition -- which sheilbh appeared to be advancing and Yi rejecting that the institutionalized instantiation of the collective can and should autonomously purse particular moral agendas on its own.  It is the difference between (for example) a business partnership that reflects the morals of the persons who happen to have created it (perhaps in the way on a day-to-day basis they deal with suppliers, customers or employees) and a similar partnership that -- apart from the individual actions of the persons who constitute it -- actively pursues a particular moral goal - for example, converting people to a particular set of religious beliefs so they can be "saved".

Indeed, but I contend such is an artificial separation that, in itself, thrives on being "separated". Are institutions' mandates really that different from the day-to-day operations that "reflect" and hence, promote, the moral beliefs of the people within ? Is it likewise possible that individuals are not already fully formed when they join - if they join - collective endeavours, and are in turn shaped by them? Justice systems, for instance, might very well be historical constructions, they are still not free for alls and chaos. Sociologically, there are many ways to construct and reconstruct the coherence of a system, and no one remakes everything in each judgement. Can people differenciate between an individual and a collective morality ?

We make such clear cut separations because it helps us think what we'd like to see the respective place of morals, of State, of society, to be regarding one another. And that, in itself, is both performatory (it underlines what "ought to be") and moral (what is the purpose of men coming together).

Now, if you prefer to envision the initial question under this single one, it might be more fruitful: can we, should we, deal away with that question: what should be the purpose of men coming together ? That is a question which makes it directed at all three terms of State, society and individual.

If one wants to brush aside this question as nowadays irrelevant, then I contend we need a new way to conceptualize the collective. Can democracy survive by being purposeless ? I am not too sure. Historically, the form of the State has been tied in with the Common Good, leaving the definition of which the matter of politics, much to the absolutist monarchs' chagrin. If we remove the "Good" from the equation, how can we still think the "Common" (probably many ways, but many seem unsavory...)

My initial reaction to Yi was that actively denying purpose to State and Society, or placing it solely in the realm of the material both stems from a moral perspective in and of itself, and has important moral consequences as well (why not defend despotism, a mutually consented slavery, etc.) - it was that, much more than a support of Sheilbh or the article he quoted (for I am not sure it provides any good answer). Once again, I much prefer to "think with" Yi, Sheilbh or you (good thinking partners in any way) than to argue for or against an already formed opinion. This is also why I will refrain from dissecting quotes, but feel free to do so if you want.

[grumbler]

Sorry to hear that.  Give him my condolences.

Give 'im yourself.

No can do.  Don't know him.

[grumbler]

Indeed, but I contend such is an artificial separation that, in itself, thrives on being "separated". Are institutions' mandates really that different from the day-to-day operations that "reflect" and hence, promote, the moral beliefs of the people within ?

I think that, in many cases, they are.  People subordinate their own personal moral beliefs to the "morality" of the institutions to which they belong all of the time.  Indeed, this was the subject that the Millgram experiment was exploring, and its results indicate that people are not nearly as rational about their moral decision-making as they believe they are, especially once caught up in a larger endeavor.

To the extent that institutions reflect the moral values of individuals, I think the individuals involved were the ones that were most forceful when the institution was formed.  Once those  mores become institutionalized, they are very difficult to change.  Catch 22 reflects this almost perfectly, and the whole of the movie They Might Be Giants turns on this idea.

[crazy canuck]

I see no reason to make this assumption.  The market comes into effect when buyers and sellers both wish to do business.  The fact that there is but a single buyer of a given service (running a prison, for example) doesn't keep multiple sellers from competing for that business, and this provides exactly the incentive to reduce the cost to government that one would seek - though not without its own, perhaps less quantifiable, costs.

Nice in theory but doesnt work well in practice in many cases since there are very few private actors that can actually provide many of the services that replace what governments do.  Also, again the cost of providing the service does not reduce simply because a private actor has taken over the venture.

Take prisons for example.  Facilities still need to be maintaine, prisoners fed, services privided to the prisoners etc etc etc.  The only way to reduce cost is to reduce service.  Governments can do that without contracting the service out.

However, as I said in my original post there are some places where some contracting out does make sense.  For example turning the operation of the Vancouver International Airport to a private local airport authority was a great move.  Not because of greater cost reduction or efficiency.  That government already ran a very cost effective efficient operation.  But what the private authority was able to do was to raise operating capital to finance airport expansion from private sources which was paid for by raising user fees for the airport - something our politicians did not have the political will to do.

This is also an good example where the revenue stream did not come from the Government but from the users of the airport (airlines, passengers and stores/restaurants/hotels within the airport so as to avoid the distorting effects of government funded ventures.

[garbon]

No can do.  Don't know him.

It won't take much effort to rectify that.

[Warspite]

Social democracy is dead in Britain?

[grumbler]

Nice in theory but doesnt work well in practice in many cases since there are very few private actors that can actually provide many of the services that replace what governments do.  Also, again the cost of providing the service does not reduce simply because a private actor has taken over the venture. 

Good thing no one is arguing these points, then. 

The only way to reduce cost is to reduce service.

Argument by assertion.

However, as I said in my original post there are some places where some contracting out does make sense.

Glad to see you restating your position.  We agree on this.