3 ms·

Irresponsible. The difference between breaking things in the private sector and the public is that in the latter you don't have the luxury of declaring company

Irresponsible. The difference between breaking things in the private sector and the public is that in the latter you don't have the luxury of declaring company bankruptcy and going home safe-and-sound to your penthouse. When states break things, people can suffer and die.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Actually, there are plenty of fields of private enterprise that have the same risk, though sometimes government has regulatory structures designed to (whether or not they work effectively in the face of unexpected strategies) mitigate those risks.
Danihan 10y ago
You don't think there are lives (and suffering) at stake when private companies mess up? Medical equipment... airlines... toxic waste dumps.. Please reconsider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-critical_system#Examples_of_safety-critical_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-critical_system#Examples_... Ironically, rarely are there examples from private industry who screw up as much as governments tend to, especially in safety-critical missions.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > Ironically, rarely are there examples from private industry who screw up as much as governments tend to, especially in safety-critical missions. Governments have the power to compel individuals under threat of violence. Private industry does not. People can choose not to do business with a company, limiting the impact of that company's actions on their lives and the lives of others. Individuals have no choice in government.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    "People can choose not to do business with a company, limiting the impact of that company's actions on their lives and the lives of others." That's not always true. See also: pharmaceuticals, utilities, various other markets susceptible to monopolies/oligopolies. I mean sure, you can choose not to take your prescribed medications, but it's probably not going to end well for you.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      In which case, you are no worse off for choosing not to do business with them than you would be if they did not exist. Pharmaceutical companies often have monopolies because of patents - but then, you're back to a government intervention again. Also note that I said "limiting the impact", because it's possible for a third party to impact you without your entering into a voluntary contract with them. For instance: if there is a river running through your property, if someone upstream diverts the river that is going to reduce the value of your property. If you were using that river to power something that enables you to fulfill a pre-existing contract then the common law concept of "tortious interference" comes into play. Life is complicated :)

dragonwriter 10y ago

Actually, there are plenty of fields of private enterprise that have the same risk, though sometimes government has regulatory structures designed to (whether or not they work effectively in the face of unexpected strategies) mitigate those risks.

Danihan 10y ago

You don't think there are lives (and suffering) at stake when private companies mess up? Medical equipment... airlines... toxic waste dumps.. Please reconsider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-critical_system#Examples_of_safety-critical_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-critical_system#Examples_... Ironically, rarely are there examples from private industry who screw up as much as governments tend to, especially in safety-critical missions.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
> Ironically, rarely are there examples from private industry who screw up as much as governments tend to, especially in safety-critical missions. Governments have the power to compel individuals under threat of violence. Private industry does not. People can choose not to do business with a company, limiting the impact of that company's actions on their lives and the lives of others. Individuals have no choice in government.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  "People can choose not to do business with a company, limiting the impact of that company's actions on their lives and the lives of others." That's not always true. See also: pharmaceuticals, utilities, various other markets susceptible to monopolies/oligopolies. I mean sure, you can choose not to take your prescribed medications, but it's probably not going to end well for you.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    In which case, you are no worse off for choosing not to do business with them than you would be if they did not exist. Pharmaceutical companies often have monopolies because of patents - but then, you're back to a government intervention again. Also note that I said "limiting the impact", because it's possible for a third party to impact you without your entering into a voluntary contract with them. For instance: if there is a river running through your property, if someone upstream diverts the river that is going to reduce the value of your property. If you were using that river to power something that enables you to fulfill a pre-existing contract then the common law concept of "tortious interference" comes into play. Life is complicated :)