A Nation of Thieves

[Tribesman]

When I went to France I was not impressed with the State at all.

So you missed the State owned train network that is excellent and which expands the business into other countries , the train network that is mainly powered by the state owned electricity generator which expands its business into other countries .
Peraps you noticed the roads , strange mix there , ordinary state owned and run roads and then the privately owned and run roads , the perfect combination which works very well .... very well when you compare it to Irelands attempt at having a mix of state and private roads which is turning out to be very expensive and bad , though it may improve over time with a lot more expense as the government buys up private projects for vastly inflated figures just to make them work better .

[ICantSpellDawg]

So you missed the State owned train network that is excellent and which expands the business into other countries , the train network that is mainly powered by the state owned electricity generator which expands its business into other countries .
Peraps you noticed the roads , strange mix there , ordinary state owned and run roads and then the privately owned and run roads , the perfect combination which works very well .... very well when you compare it to Irelands attempt at having a mix of state and private roads which is turning out to be very expensive and bad , though it may improve over time with a lot more expense as the government buys up private projects for vastly inflated figures just to make them work better .

I couldn't generalize France's roads, but Ireland is a scary place to drive. I'll most likely never rent a car.

It's like the roads are made windier and scarier on purpose.

I like the idea of the government as a safety net. The LCD.
I live on Long Island - we have to be careful with having one system as it could turn into a catastrophe. If some roads were privatized while others were state run it might be a great thing. The State roads could act as insurance from bad company run roads and vice versa. Some people say that competition isn't possible when the State runs anything. I don't buy that. One way or the other can be very bad for competition.

Look at the USPS, FedEx and UPS. I think those systems work very well as there is competition and it takes the burden off of the taxpayer. That is a successful model in my humble opinion.

[Tribesman]

I couldn't generalize France's roads, but Ireland is a scary place to drive. I'll most likely never rent a car.

It's like the roads are made windier and scarier on purpose.

Come on Ireland is a fun place to drive, you just have to take into account that there is a fair chance that the driver of the next car doesn't have a licence and shouldn't be let anywhere near a motor vehicle ...oh and in certain parts of the country add in the factor that they may be very drunk as well .
As for the windy roads , that is normal , you couldn't expact an ass and cart to go up and down all the little hills so you build roads that go around every little bump in the landscape . Imagine the lunacy of changing the nature of roads just because of a passing modern fashion like automobiles

[drone]

Certain important infrastructure should not be privatized, or go beyond a heavily regulated monopoly. British Rail was an example. Infrastructure is not something that leads itself to competition, privatizing it just leads to a company sucking as much profit as possible while delivering the worst service. The duty of a company is to make profit for it's shareholders, so they will cut what they consider waste and unnecessary upgrades unless forced by their competition (which is non-existent). So in the end you have a vital service supplied to the people by a company beholden only to their shareholders, with no accountability to people they supposedly serve. Not a knock on the free market, it's just that certain infrastructure services do not fit free market concepts. The key is finding out which services lend themselves to open competition.

I prefer the regulated monopoly myself. You have to pay a little more, but central planning and oversight allows the infrastructure to accommodate times of peak use better.

[LittleGrizzly]

Another problem with privatisation for the railways and the post office, is that they can simply cut less used routes/post offices in rural places where they are usually needed more, what the customer may need in a certian area is simply unimportant to a company unless theres profit to be made... but the goverment will weigh peoples needs much more heavily than the profit...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Another problem with privatisation for the railways and the post office, is that they can simply cut less used routes/post offices in rural places where they are usually needed more, what the customer may need in a certian area is simply unimportant to a company unless theres profit to be made... but the goverment will weigh peoples needs much more heavily than the profit...

Right. Our postal system is another example of a good government balance. Everybody is in the loop, but there are viable faster alternatives for a bit more money through partial privatization of the industry. Health care could go something like that.

[rory_20_uk]

Another problem with privatisation for the railways and the post office, is that they can simply cut less used routes/post offices in rural places where they are usually needed more, what the customer may need in a certian area is simply unimportant to a company unless theres profit to be made... but the goverment will weigh peoples needs much more heavily than the profit...

If post offices were so used, then they'd be profitable and would not be cut. That they are not profitable is because no one is using them.

If locals want one, they should come up with a plan: add a small one in another store, or pay the company to keep one open for them, or run a franchise store.

[Tribesman]

If post offices were so used, then they'd be profitable and would not be cut. That they are not profitable is because no one is using them.

If ambulances were so used then they'd be profitable and would not be cut , That they are not profitable is because no one is using them .

[Tribesman]

Doctors now face civil rather than criminal courts on proving evidence.

thats because its cheaper for the government , I thought you was infavour of the government saving money .

No longer any job security - London 6 months, then Bristol, then who knows where for the next decade or so.

Oh so you want job for life guarantees and not a flexibe workplace , hey I thought you was against such stringent restrictions on the freemarket .
So lets see , you like the government saving money , unless it affects you .
You want people to be flexible with their working conditions , as long as its not you .
You really don't like government subsidies , unless it is you that is getting them .

That says a lot about your views Rory , and they are best summed up by saying your views are bollox.
So tell me Rory , did you get your oath slightly wrong ?
Did you take the hypocritical one instead of the hippocratic ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't know why we'd be calling a doctor's opinions on the subject bollox. You may not agree, but Rory is experiencing these things from a professional perspective first hand while you are just reading about them from a separate country in amateur way. To dismiss his opinions as BS is really rather irritating.

[rory_20_uk]

I am for a free marketplace - I'm flexibly moving careers in response to market dynamics. I was merely listing the reasons for doing so. You're the one whining that I'm leaving. Did you forget that? The City offers more money for the same lack of stability.

The courts hadn't changed, the standard of evidence has. Any evidence for the saving of money?

The Hippocratic oath isn't compulsory. It also states nothing about where or if I practice medicine. And the relevance of a 2,000 year old practitioner who believed in 4 humours? Not much.

So, anything more than half hashed accusations? So far it appears you're not even bothering to address what I say.

[Tribesman]

You're the one whining that I'm leaving. Did you forget that?

I am not whining that you are leaving , I am just saying that you moan about other people getting subsides but like to get them yourself , you moan that other people want secure terms of employment but want them for yourself .

The Hippocratic oath isn't compulsory. It also states nothing about where or if I practice medicine. And the relevance of a 2,000 year old practitioner who believed in 4 humours? Not much.

Ah I see that wordplay was beyond your comprehension , it must be all that subsided education you had .

To dismiss his opinions as BS is really rather irritating.

I didn't call them BS , I called them bollox due to the blatant hypocricy of them .

[rory_20_uk]

Everyone gets subsidised education. Does everyone work for the state? No. So stop complaining that I don't want to. I happen to have a job that pays a lot of tax. Be happy - I'm giving the state loads of cash.

What subsidies are you on about? A salary?
Everyone wants secure employment. I do not believe I or anyone else has the right to it.

Clear?

I fail to see where the hypocrisy comes from. Apparently clearly stating that I will change career in an open job market is. I personally feel you've got some issues to resolve, or frankly refuse to acknowledge the glaring errors in your rant, yet refuse to back down.