I read what you wrote correctly and then replied to it. Your criterion for not privatizing something was that it is "an absolute necessity" / "an essential need that nobody can live without". While you started talking about roads, you finished by including water in your argument. And while you mentioned nothing about competition / market availability, you now introduce it as if was one of your criterion.
And while you did not type that "the production of stuff should be turned over to the government", your argument WAS to "be careful not to privatize" things that are "an absolute necessity" / "an essential need that nobody can live without" such as water. Dare I say that arguing against privatization is certainly suggesting that it be turned over to the government / that the government should take over. I put no words in your mouth. It appears that upon confrontation, you are backpedaling and trying to change your argument. -------------------------------------------- > From Ma Ni: > ------------------------- > Then I guess we better turn all production and distribution of > food and shelter and clothing over to government. > From Marinza: READ what I wrote, Ma Ni. Clothes are definitely essential - but the market is flooded by clothes. You have lots of choice, there is lots of competition in clothes, you can buy whatever you want, or not. Food is also essential, but there's also lots of competition in the food industry. You don't have to stand in line for half a day for a loaf of bread. But whereas a road is also an essential item, the market is NOT flooded with roads. Can you see the entire State or US paved over with roads so as to offer competition? Block does not say much about it. All I pointed out that with certain essential items privatization may not work so well, and I pointed that out for the sake of DISCUSSION. It was strictly an opinion. I also NEVER suggested in my opinions that the production of stuff should be turned over to the government. Those are YOUR words that you put in MY mouth. Don't do that. I totally dislike that, as you would too. I ONLY brought up some points for the sake of discussion - merely pondering the workability of certain concepts and ideas. NEVER did I state or suggest that the government should take over. From Ma Ni: > Water IS privatized. In fact, the only reason the private owner > IS getting rich selling one of the most abundant natural > resources is because government-supplied water is typically of > such lousy quality. Every day millions choose to buy bottled > drinking water rather than drink the dank stuff that comes from > their faucets. And considering that the government-supplied water > is typically high in unhealthy and nasty-tasting things like TDSs > and chlorine and bone-rotting fluoride, it is over-priced. > Speaking of "going thirsty"... the success of bottled water and > soft drinks is proof that people would rather go thirsty than > drink city water. > ------------------------- > From Marinza: The government you want to get rid of is helping you do good business. (I'm being sarcastic, Ma Ni, in case you did not catch that.)
