Public vs. Private

[Millman]

At what point is an idea not for everyone and vice versa. Whatever organization you're going to build, will you consider the ramifications of it?

Discuss. It could be anything to a nail-salon, a computer company, and/or government organization.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think you need to eleborate a bit more, thats quite an open ended question.

If your reffering to buisness and the economic side of things, then I always think that things like healthcare should be publically owned, whereas thigns like computer game industry should be private.

So essentially the basic things that help people to live healthy productive lifes should be publically owned, example:I don't think it's morale to make money from someone being sick.. Then things which people buy to enjoy themselves and so forth then by all means make money from it.

It's difficult to find the right balance though.

 

[BuckyRea]

At what point is an idea not for everyone and vice versa. Whatever organization you're going to build, will you consider the ramifications of it?

Discuss. It could be anything to a nail-salon, a computer company, and/or government organization.

Nail salons should be publicly accessible, but privately owned; they're public accommodations, after all. Computer companies, because they're large corporations that can deal with sensitive personal information, should be publicly owned, but only privately accessible. A government organization, obviously, should be publicly owned and publicly accessible. What, then, should be both privately owned and only privately accessible. I would suggest gentlemen's hunting clubs where we track down and shoot ship wreck victims cast ashore on our private island--for man is the most dangerous game--would be appropriate for this last category.

There, I believe I have answered your question exhaustively.

 

[Narz]

Please elaborate a bit more. Sounds like a potentially interesting topic but not 100% sure what you're asking.

 

[Leonel]

While it's ideal to have free market competition, my concern about giving private enterprise too much control in society is that it seems ultimately they are under no obligation whatsoever to hold themselves accountable to the public or their customers except to a select few shareholders and even if you buy one or two shares, your say counts for jack if someone owns 60% of a company's shares.

I believe there must be things that are publicly owned and operated because it's been my impression that a public service has to answer to and focus on the needs of citizens and citizens alone, primarily stuff that promotes the general welfare of the people.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Public for necessitates and Private for luxuries. Thats pretty rough though with quite a bit of overlap.

 

[Cheetah]

I'm reading answers to five different questions so far.

Elaboration is sorely missed.

 

[Millman]

P.S. I could have given this question to anyone to ask here. Thank you.

At what point does a population not hold these organizations accountable. When the police are called to investigate a crime and they don't doesn't that qualify for anti-trust hearings?

I do work for the private sector and they public one can cause me problems when they don't follow their own standards. I don't get to arbitrarily change the rules to comfort my personal desires so they shouldn't either.

I know this thread is a tad provocative.

My argument - privatize all objects, organizations, effects etc.,. Hold them all to the same standard. It would help support the cause for equal protection. "Everything should be subject to anti-trust."