Pawlenty Google Test

[Razgovory]

Call your congressman, the Constitution gives the congress power to issue them.

Interesting... I may just have to try that.  I wonder if my Congressman will even know what a letter of marque is.

Who's your congressmen?

Who isn't his congressmen?

My Congressman isn't his congressman.  Actually I think I have a Congresswoman now.

Apparently his Senator's Dad want to issue letter of Marque.

[Caliga]

Brett Guthrie is my CongressMAN.

Actually he might know... IIRC he went to the Naval Academy.

[The Brain]

Swedish "Posten" lost its monopoly in 1993. We're doing OK.

But you still have state-owned postal service, right? If so, not sure how your post is relevant. We are talking about the state completely withdrawing from offering postal services. 

I have been talking about the monopoly since the tenth post in this thread. Try to keep up.

[Neil]

Isn't first class mail frequently used for official, formal, government, court etc. communication? If so, it is important that all citizens have an equal access to those.

But not really, since they don't.

[Razgovory]

Brett Guthrie is my CongressMAN.

Actually he might know... IIRC he went to the Naval Academy.

He looks like a sitcom Dad.  Served in the same unit as Seigey.

[The Minsky Moment]

But adjudication is not a court system, and could not possibly replace the court system.

This is semantics.  UPS is not the post office but they perform similar functions.  The same is true for the private justice providers.  The functions are interchangable.

Already at present virtually any kind of civil law claim can and is resolved through private arbitration in the US.  While the state still maintains a monopoly on criminal ajudications, it would be quite possible to contract this out to the private sector.

BUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.

Private security companies don't need warrants because they aren't constrained by the 4th amendment; they can do whatever the want with the only risk being sued for privacy invasion or trespass.  Private security companies certainly have the power to investigate and may have more flexibility and efficiency than the public providers.  As for arrest, the authority to detain is presently limited but it could easily be expanded by law, and then subject to regulation.

Pawlenty's test is not whether there is some private service that precisely duplicates the government agency in terms of all of its capabilities.  If that were the test, then none of his examples would qualify because there is no private service that provides universal service like the post office, or subsidized, government guaranteed mortgage securitization like Fanny/Freddie, or intercity passenger rail service like Amtrak.

[Caliga]

He looks like a sitcom Dad.  Served in the same unit as Seigey.

He's cool... I like him.  Unlike Jim Bunning.

[Gups]

[Already at present virtually any kind of civil law claim can and is resolved through private arbitration in the US. 

But crucially only because the parties agree. If there was no possibility of sueing someone in court, how many defendants would agree to arbitration?

There has to be a default system for adjudicating disputes which allows actions to commence without the consent of both parties. There could be more than one, but you would soon find that competing systems will compete not only on costs but on a reputation of being better to sue in.

[grumbler]

Isn't first class mail frequently used for official, formal, government, court etc. communication? If so, it is important that all citizens have an equal access to those.

This issue isn't access to receiving "official, formal, government, court etc. communication."  The person sending the mail pays for it in the US, and a price increase thus wouldn't impact the ability of anyone to receive these communications.  The burden would fall on the officials, government, courts, etc.

[Berkut]

BUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.

What an idiotic retort. Seriously. 

They can do it. They just need to get a legal authorization to do so. You just argued that private postal service could deliver first class mail and that the state post's monopoly on this should be abolished - so how is this different? Abolish the state monopoly on ability to arrest, investigate or get warrants. 

Right. Lets just privatize the arresting and trying of citizens, because that is no different in kind than the idea that private companies can deliver mail. Why, giving up the state monopoly on violence is exactly the same as giving up the state monopoly on delivering mail, no difference there, and if you support one, then of course you MUST support the other!

And MY response is idiotic! "Seriously"!

[Berkut]

But adjudication is not a court system, and could not possibly replace the court system.

This is semantics.  UPS is not the post office but they perform similar functions.  The same is true for the private justice providers.  The functions are interchangable.

Already at present virtually any kind of civil law claim can and is resolved through private arbitration in the US.  While the state still maintains a monopoly on criminal ajudications, it would be quite possible to contract this out to the private sector.

BUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.

Private security companies don't need warrants because they aren't constrained by the 4th amendment; they can do whatever the want with the only risk being sued for privacy invasion or trespass.  Private security companies certainly have the power to investigate and may have more flexibility and efficiency than the public providers.  As for arrest, the authority to detain is presently limited but it could easily be expanded by law, and then subject to regulation.

Pawlenty's test is not whether there is some private service that precisely duplicates the government agency in terms of all of its capabilities.  If that were the test, then none of his examples would qualify because there is no private service that provides universal service like the post office, or subsidized, government guaranteed mortgage securitization like Fanny/Freddie, or intercity passenger rail service like Amtrak.

Come on, this is just silly. Perfect example of argument from extremes. It is patently obvious what Pawlenty means, and it isn't that we should get rid of the US Army, because in theory we could just contract out national security, because there are in fact companies out there that employ people with guns, therefore getting rid of the Army is identical in kind to ditching the postal service.

You are better than this kind of silly arguments. There are plenty of good arguments to be made against excessive privatization of government services. The idea that supporting one kind of privatization means you have to support every ridiculous extreme is infantile. What is the point of making an argument for someone you know that if you asked them about they would refuse to support?

Do you really think that if you asked Pawlenty if we should get rid of the FBI under the terms of what he said, he would agree that yes, that is exactly what he meant?

[Berkut]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0607/Tim-Pawlenty-s-plan-to-revive-the-US-economy-the-Google-Test

"If you can find a service or good available on Google or the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," said Mr. Pawlenty, speaking at the University of Chicago. "The post office, the Government Printing Office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. But that's no longer the case."

Applying the Google test would result in dispensing with the entire court system, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, all the intelligence agencies, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

One thing it would not get rid of, however, is Amtrak.  Because I don't think you can find an intercity rail service on the internet that does not involve a government subsidized service.

What is really sad about this is that you recognize the basic ridiculousness of your claim in your quip about Amtrak.

[The Minsky Moment]

Come on, this is just silly. Perfect example of argument from extremes.

Exactly.  But the argument from extremes is Pawlenty's not mine.   If all Pawlenty meant to say was that we should consider privitazing certain government functions that common sense and international experience suggest can be carried out effectively by the private sector, then *that* is what he should have said.  Instead, he posed the Google test, which is nonsensical.

[alfred russel]

Come on, this is just silly. Perfect example of argument from extremes.

Exactly.  But the argument from extremes is Pawlenty's not mine.   If all Pawlenty meant to say was that we should consider privitazing certain government functions that common sense and international experience suggest can be carried out effectively by the private sector, then *that* is what he should have said.  Instead, he posed the Google test, which is nonsensical.

"If you can find a service or good available on Google or the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," said Mr. Pawlenty, speaking at the University of Chicago. "The post office, the Government Printing Office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. But that's no longer the case."

In his quote that you led off with, the google test seems to have weasel words that don't imply shutting down every service that has some analog on the internet. You may be added an extremity to the test that isn't there.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think the weasal words rescue the test.  The availability of a service marketed on the internet does not suggest that the federal government "probably" doesn't need to provide it.  In fact, the availability of a service marketed on the internet doesn't really have anything to do with whether the government should be providing it.  The test should be whether the private sector can and will do a better job providing the service than the government does, taking into account all the desired objectives of the government program.  The "Google test" is the wrong test, qualified or no.