People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You clearly don't like it doing so.

---

You are right, I don't really like the public sector doing things. But I can see the necessity in some cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I believe my influence over enormous corporations is minimal, should I decide not to buy their products/services. My 'choice', therefore, is all but irrelevant to them.

---

I believe my influence over enourmous bureaucracies to be minimal. However I am FORCED to pay into them. You are not FORCED to buy anything from any corporation. Do you see the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Your definition of choice is narrow. If you applied your same desire for a free choice to all aspects of life, you would be in favour of offering people an entirely free choice on issues such as abortion. But you don't. You feel free choice has its limits.

---

You seriously want to argue that since I do not believe murder to be a choice that I am not for free choice? And almost in the same breath you are arguing for governments forcing people to pay into a system which is loosing money, as some sort of "choice".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Are you aware of the history of the competing rail operators in the UK between the wars?

---

No and I stated as such. But between the wars is not the start of the rail industry either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Who's life?

---

The unborn child's life. Does that have no value to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You seriously want to argue that since I do not believe murder to be a choice that I am not for free choice? And almost in the same breath you are arguing for governments forcing people to pay into a system which is loosing money, as some sort of "choice".

---

With this statement, I'm afraid you lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. It is no exaggeration to say I find your opinion on abortion repellant.

Quote:

---

And I believe this to be totally wrong — an extremely sweeping statement. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject would cite many other reasons, such as the manner of privatisation, the sort of companies that took over, etc, etc, etc.

---

The privatisation of railways actually came from EU policy, so it happened all over Europe at the same time. Everywhere in Europe the infrastructure is split from the railway operators to allow competition on the railways. Most countries then made their railway operator a publicly owned private company. Only in the UK they attempted a full privatisation. Even though free market competition is possible now all over Europe, you hardly see it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most railway companies in the UK still receive large subsidies? If you could operate a railway in a profitable manner without any sort of financial support of the government, why does it rarely happen anywhere in Europe?? It is because we as a society require a certain transportation network at our disposal, for a certain affordable price. And that is impossible for the private sector to provide for completely. The private sector cannot be made to operate non-viable lines, even if these are socially desirable. That is why full privatisation of the railways is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

With this statement, I'm afraid you lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. It is no exaggeration to say I find your opinion on abortion repellant.

---

My position on abortion is repellant? I find human life to be worth preserving, and that is repellant? I believe there to be a right to life, and that is repellant?

How do you defend a mother murdering her child?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

The privatisation of railways actually came from EU policy, so it happened all over Europe at the same time.

---

Not my recollection at all — and nor do any of the books written by genuine experts on the matter cite this as a reason behind the privatisation in Britain. Privatisation could have occurred earlier had the government desired it, but it didn't. It was a political decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

Everywhere in Europe the infrastructure is split from the railway operators to allow competition on the railways.

---

Not in Germany, to my knowledge, where the infrastructure is still in the hands of Deutsche Bahn, which remains the main (state-owned) rail operator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most railway companies in the UK still receive large subsidies?

---

The railways in Britain cost the taxpayer more now than ever they did before privatisation. At the point of its demise, British Rail was well on the way to genuine profitability, and an increasingly excellent example of a state-owned company adopting certain free market principles to positive ends. Then it was all ruined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

My position on abortion is repellant? I find human life to be worth preserving, and that is repellant? I believe there to be a right to life, and that is repellant?

How do you defend a mother murdering her child?

---

It is statements like these which make me somewhat glad to be European, where such over-emotional views are thankfully confined to the lunatic fringe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not my recollection at all — and nor do any of the books written by genuine experts on the matter cite this as a reason behind the privatisation in Britain. Privatisation could have occurred earlier had the government desired it, but it didn't. It was a political decision.

---

Full privatisation as done in the UK was not required by the EU, no. The EU wanted to break open the railway monopolies, the way the individual states implemented this was open to themselves. As I said, the UK was the only one that attempted full privatisation, with the chaotic consequenses you know.

Quote:

---

Not in Germany, to my knowledge, where the infrastructure is still in the hands of Deutsche Bahn, which remains the main (state-owned) rail operator.

---

But it is possible for other railway operators to drive on Deutsche Bahn infrastructure, which is the point.

Quote:

---

The railways in Britain cost the taxpayer more now than ever they did before privatisation. At the point of its demise, British Rail was well on the way to genuine profitability, and an increasingly excellent example of a state-owned company adopting certain free market principles to positive ends. Then it was all ruined.

---

Which was exactly my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It is statements like these which make me somewhat glad to be European, where such over-emotional views are thankfully confined to the lunatic fringe.

---

Over-emotional? Give me a break. You somehow think that murder equals choice. And you call me over-emotional.

And then to state that since I find murder to be repellant, that that somehow means that my views on the free-market are invalid, is just silly. Especially in light of the fact that you are arguing for people to be FORCED into paying for your transportation.

I want to give poeple free-market choices, as long as those choices don't infrige upon one's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness (or my prefered term, property). You want to FORCE people into paying for things they may not use. And I am the one against choice? Boy oh boy the Ministry of Truth would be proud of that logic.