How has capitalism managed

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To make people believe that putting a price tag on water, subjecting healthcare to profiteers etc. etc. are "good" things?

[Publius]

I'd hope anyone with a brain would not regard commerce is a moral activity in and of itself, but on the conrary, I know that Randians exist.

Damn.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:25 pm
I'd hope anyone with a brain would not regard commerce is a moral activity in and of itself, but on the conrary, I know that Randians exist.

Damn.
I suppose we look sane after seeing them...

Anyway seriously, in asnwer to the original question, the capitalists would have us believe it is for the over all good. A bit of inconvenience here for the overall good of the economy. That is how the thinmking runs to boil it down to perhaps simplistic terms.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, the public in the US has actually supported a Canadian type, government insurance system since Truman first purposed it according to polls. But, as many political scientists note, what the public wants is "politically unrealistic," which means power and privilege oppose it. But since the US health care system is so inefficient, even many businesses, car manufacturers and so on, want it because it's costing them to much, so you've seen it enter the "national debate" again (it was originally beaten back by a huge corporate offensive).

I don't know that most people support privatization of utilities, the post office, water, etc. either.

Some people support it, and those are Libertarians, but they're actually a minority on that issue, thankfully.

I don't know why they support it though, they seem to a support a society where corporations, in their current form, control everything, not just water and healthcare, but schools, the post office, public utilities, all transportation, everything. Libertarians even want to privatize elections so that corporations can contribute as much as they want, and the ballots would actually be printed by private companies -- the latter is already kind of happening with the Diebold "We'll deliver ohio to GW Bush" corporation, and all, with the expected dangerous results: vote tampering and poor equipment already. And remember the power crisis in California a few years ago, mainly the result of the privatization of energy so PG&E and SoCal Edison were charging hundreds of dollars per kilowatt hour. The blackouts didn't happen in areas where the public owned the utilities.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:25 pm
I'd hope anyone with a brain would not regard commerce is a moral activity in and of itself, but on the conrary, I know that Randians exist.

Damn.
yeah wtf, i always thought things like that came out of necessity

[BobKKKindle$]

In developing countries, it is very often the case that people do not support the privatisation of public assets and basic services as an effective form of economic management, but the power of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund means that decisions undertaken by governments do not reflect the requirements and demands of the electorate.

In other cases, the ruling class may try and present reforms of the public sector as maintaining the principle of public ownership, for example, through private finance investement in the National health service in the UK.

[Adam Rand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:25 pm
I'd hope anyone with a brain would not regard commerce is a moral activity in and of itself, but on the conrary, I know that Randians exist.

Damn.
Haha, they do, don't they?

[Tungsten]

I'd hope anyone with a brain would not regard commerce is a moral activity in and of itself, but on the conrary, I know that Randians exist.
Pft. Far bet it for me to defend her, but from what I remember, Rand was a opponent of moral intrinsicism.

And what's with the new avatar?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:59 pm
To make people believe that putting a price tag on water, subjecting healthcare to profiteers etc. etc. are "good" things?
Well,

When it comes to water, assuming you have the ability to pay, you should pay the government for providing clean tap water through user fees like my quarterly water bill. If you don't have the ability to pay, you deserve help.

And when it comes to health care, same thing.

It's neither good nor bad, it's just feasible and fair. It goes like this: if you put a price on it, people will consume less. If it's free, there's no reason to not consume.

That's the crux of the never-ending argument between capitalists and communists.