Quote:
Originally Posted by BallzDeep
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Well, there are definitely rates to most local councils or state governments. These are things Republicans are actually against. Republicans feel that the market sets the rate. Competition and moral ends up setting a precedent. If you go to a restaurant and they treat you like shit, you leave and never come back. Democrats feel that people who earn more need to pay in more to support people that don't. Republicans feel that more people abuse the system than actually need it. You'd be surprised how many people are not doing more than they can; myself included. They also believe that local community and charities should be the back bone of the community and not government taxing. Anything forces is bad and as we are saying equates to some level of slavery.
On water, food, and shelter. You must pay for those at your own cost to private organizations. They typically require a deposit up front. If you cannot afford these, we do have government subsidized programs that feed, and shelter those who need it. Republicans want less government involvement there as well and feel as though the community you are local to should be your first outreach.
It's just a difference in philosophy. Republicans believe if a water company tries to take advantage, in a free open market, another one can come along at a cheaper rate and supply the same water without any fool play from the other side. Democrats believe if the government helps regulate a lot of it, it will reduce pricing because it is government subsidized.
|
That's an interesting post.
I do have some questions.
It's easy to get people to sign up for plumbed water when you are the only gig in town, but if a second company starts up... I struggle to see how they would be able to take a significant share of the market and the amount of infrastructure involved in a water company means the outlay for a new company to open up would be astronomical. I mean they could come to arrangement to share infrastructure with the existing company (seems unlikely), but then that has it's own problems.
Honestly, it doesn't look like services which involve massive one time infrastructure investments (with large upkeep costs) really fit the free market model. Each area will have its own monopoly. Some kind of socialism seems to make sense for these cases where there can be no meaningful free market competition, even if it is just a mechanism or vehicle to introduce free market competition.
I don't believe socialism only leads to communism, there seems to be many instances of where it has lead to capitalism (I know in the UK lots of national services got privatised). In fact socialism seems to have helped a lot of countries industrialise and create infrastructure quickly in a standardised, scalable fashion, and use it as a stepping stone into capitalism. A problem with the development of infrastructure in a freemarket system is there is very little standardisation and this is not efficient or scalable.
I'm surprised to hear the Republicans believe in the local community supporting those who are unable to provide themselves food and shelter. That is literal socialism (or indeed communism if the vulnerable person pools their labour or other resources in exchange for the food). Seems at odds with what they are about. Perhaps they envision some kind of capitalist commune (oxymoron I know) work house where those in poverty can fulfil their physical, safety, and physiological needs as a stepping stone out of poverty?
11-22-2019, 08:49 PM
Linear Mode
