4 ms·
> We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality. Or alternatively, public (and by public I don't necessarily mean state) owned infrastru
by ue_ 9y ago
> We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality.
Or alternatively, public (and by public I don't necessarily mean state) owned infrastructure, in which the public can vote directly for what they wish to be improved about it. The argument against the quality of infrastructure isn't very strong when it's the public that decides how the infrastructure is operated and which parts are improved. As for competition, I can't see why that's necessarily a good thing. It's a waste of finite resources.
- unityByFreedom 9y agoYou mean like the public owning the means to production? No thanks, too many cooks in the kitchen. We're a democratic republic specifically to avoid that. As inept as we view our Congress to be, we're still a highly developed, functioning country.
- ue_ 9y ago>No thanks, too many cooks in the kitchen. We're a democratic republic specifically to avoid that. To avoid what?
- unityByFreedom 9y agoUninformed decisions by masses who can't be expected to have the general knowledge to solve every issue. In a republic, we trust that our representatives will find and tap such experts to inform them. We don't always agree with the end decision, but, at least we are not on the chopping block. If some portion of the voting public became directly responsible for a poorly engineered bridge failure, or Flint water, I can only imagine the backlash. With a republic we can hold a small few responsible without upending everyone for their votes all the time.