Out of curiosity, which do you think is worse, Public systems (EG. Public healthcare and public railroads) or private-public partnerships (EG. subsidized healthcare)
I have to say the private-public option is worse. I know it is technically closer to a fully privatized system, but it gives the full private option a bad name. Furthermore, public systems have to at least last long enough for the government in power to stick around, so that if (or rather, when) problems arise, they can be stuck on any number of reasons (say, the current government’s bad management). Private-Public partnerships, however, have entirely different problems. The company in charge of managing whatever the government gives them is presumably looking to make a profit, but with the government behind them they can slash their costs on everything and simply ride on government payments rather then the support of the consumer (Look at the performance of the various British “Private-Public partnerships”, it made the private system look terrible)
Well, if I were Jewish, Homosexual, disabled, old, a Gypsy, Slavic, or any other form of “undesirable”, I would go with the Soviet Union. I would also go with the Soviets if the alternative was being a woman in East Germany in 1945.
If I was considered sufficiently “Aryan” or “German” or whatever, and was a fit male aged anywhere from 6 to 20, I would go with the Nazis (though I damn well wouldn’t want to be on the Eastern Front or with the SS or SA)
It’s basically a choice between socialism and fascism.
I’d choose fascism.
I think the defining part of Nazism was its institution of racism as a central characteristic of the entire regime. In other words, it wasn’t unique for its lack of economic freedoms but instead its lack of political freedom.
Meh, I mean yes, but technically speaking, there are differences. Those differences do matter. At least to me.
Fascism is like the distribution part of socialism without the ownership part. Like in this country, the government doesn’t necessarily own a lot but it has its hands in everything. Outright socialism is where the government owns everything and controls the channels of distribution. If I had to choose one, I’d choose fascism.
“I do not often agree with John Kenneth Galbraith, but his recent suggestion to nationalize businesses which get more than 75% of their revenue from government, or from the military, has considerable merit. Certainly it does not mean aggression against private property, and, furthermore, we could expect a considerable diminution of zeal from the military-industrial complex if much of the profits were taken out of war and plunder.” - Murray Rothbard[1]
I generally think if you’re going to create an inefficient model it’s better to make it totally socialized, so that way when it inevitably fails socialism gets the blame. When it’s 50/50 capitalism always gets the blame.
No, it is just more wasteful, since it allows the private enterprise to suck more resources out of the economy. So it is more like building two bridges to no where, with all the red tape, so just as inefficient.