Is it time to privatize cities?

Are privatized cities a good idea

  • Total voters
    54
Eat_Up_Martha said:
I suppose it could actually lead to a middle-class 'utopia' in some ways because any citizen who can not afford to live in such a city might simply be removed from it altogether. Without any form of social provisions for the poor all groups would be incentivized to relocate them, by choice or by force. The poor would be better off in non-privatized cities where they can be assured at least basic services and the rich would probably be enticed to remove non-contributing and possibly criminal elements from their communities. And it such policies would be much easier to put in place given that citizenship is essentially a purchasable commodity.
Click to expand...

How do you suppose an economy works, exactly? I can see removing the homeless (potentially; I mean where would you put them?), but the poor? Why bottom out your working class like that?
 
Crezth said:
How do you suppose an economy works, exactly? I can see removing the homeless (potentially; I mean where would you put them?), but the poor? Why bottom out your working class like that?
Click to expand...

Market forces would dictate that the low-skill labour that enables the middle-class lifestyle would necessarily pay the minimum acceptable wage to entice enough labourers to fill those positions. I would imagine that such jobs would also provide benefits in lieu of government funded services in order to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

More to your point, you're absolutely correct. When I wrote the above statement, I was mostly referring to the absolutely destitute who depend primarily on public services in order to survive and not so much the working poor, despite not stating as such.
 
I have to put this out though: Even though I don't think this is a good idea, I think it's an interesting thought experiment.
 
Murky said:
What would a privatized city do with orphans or children with disabilities that had a parent or legal guardian unable to pay for their care?
Click to expand...

Raise them as gladiators. It's the humane thing to do.

Realistically, I suppose it depends on whether or not the citizens of the privatized city actually care what happens to orphans. While in a traditional (sane) city, the well being of orphans should ensured by the state with the tacit agreement from the rest of society that this is a worthwhile use of taxpayer money. In a privatized city, the citizens would have to actively decide whether or not to contribute to some sort of orphanage system explicitly.
 
Eat_Up_Martha said:
Market forces would dictate that the low-skill labour that enables the middle-class lifestyle would necessarily pay the minimum acceptable wage to entice enough labourers to fill those positions. I would imagine that such jobs would also provide benefits in lieu of government funded services in order to maintain an acceptable standard of living.
Click to expand...

What's the evidence for this claim? "Market forces," though an age old argument, is hardly anything substantive in its own right. I need merely to point at the 200 million migrant workers in China living in absolutely appalling conditions, despite not having unions or government utilities backing them up getting in their way.

More to your point, you're absolutely correct. When I wrote the above statement, I was mostly referring to the absolutely destitute who depend primarily on public services in order to survive and not so much the working poor, despite not stating as such.
Click to expand...

I think this population is much, much, much smaller than you anticipate.
 
Crezth said:
What's the evidence for this claim? "Market forces," though an age old argument, is hardly anything substantive in its own right. I need merely to point at the 200 million migrant workers in China living in absolutely appalling conditions, despite not having unions or government utilities backing them up getting in their way.
Click to expand...

Re-reading my post, it seems a little vague and I think you may have got the wrong impression. Do you think that I am saying that the market forces will allow the people in low-skill jobs to live a middle class lifestyle, or that the type of low-skill jobs that support others in a middle class lifestyle (that is, retail, food services, etc.) will remain filled because the market will bear the cost?

Crezth said:
I think this population is much, much, much smaller than you anticipate.
Click to expand...

I gave no specifics. What levels do you think I am anticipating?
 
Antilogic said:
Yay corporate feudalism! Could they issue their own scrip only valid at the company store?
Click to expand...

That has actually occurred in US history as I bet you already know. There's a chance that any town that was founded as a corporate enterprise (e.g. mining) had a period in which 'citizens' were really employees lured to the settlement and paid in corporate scrip for warehouse access until Federal currency and de facto civil government reached the town. Weren't some of the earliest stages of some of the original US colonies under-taken as such as well?


Murky said:
What would a privatized city do with orphans or children with disabilities that had a parent or legal guardian unable to pay for their care?
Click to expand...

"Please sir, may I have some more?" "MOAR???!?!?!? You WANT MOOAAOAOAOAORRRR?!???!?"
 
Eat_Up_Martha said:
Re-reading my post, it seems a little vague and I think you may have got the wrong impression. Do you think that I am saying that the market forces will allow the people in low-skill jobs to live a middle class lifestyle, or that the type of low-skill jobs that support others in a middle class lifestyle (that is, retail, food services, etc.) will remain filled because the market will bear the cost?
Click to expand...

I don't think the distinction is necessary because I would take contention with both points: the first on empirical grounds, and the second on moral grounds.

I gave no specifics. What levels do you think I am anticipating?
Click to expand...

It's honestly hard to tell because you've been exceptionally vague thus far. But I suppose you would imagine there is a nontrivial quantity because you devoted your vanguard post to it.
 
Crezth said:
Please, go on.
Click to expand...
Someone much better at it explains it here.
You can't take a legal text from from 12th Century Lombardy, have it translated and interpreted by 17th century French legal scholars, take their interpretations and assumptions about the text, and generalize them into a wider European context.
 
Why do we even distinguish public vs. private? It basically presumes either one is good or bad propter hoc, even though both can make the same decisions.
 
Kaiserguard said:
Why do we even distinguish public vs. private? It basically presumes either one is good or bad propter hoc, even though both can make the same decisions.
Click to expand...

Accountability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hygro
Alternatives to hard money question mark
Replies
18
Views
554
Lexicus
Lexicus
Samson
  • Poll Poll
Internet privacy, security, age restrictions, VPNs and backups
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
2K
Clubber Lang
Clubber Lang
Zardnaar
Red Zoning Disasters
Replies
3
Views
291
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
Zardnaar
Government Vs Private
Replies
17
Views
2K
Tee Kay
Tee Kay
Samson
  • Poll Poll
How do you secure your online identity?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Bestbank Tiger
B
Back
Top Bottom